Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[MR. SPEAKER in the Chair]

NEW WRIT

Ordered,
That Mr. Speaker do issue his Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown to make out a new writ for the electing of a Member to serve in the present Parliament for the Borough Constituency of Greenwich, in the room of Nicholas Guy Barnett, Esquire, deceased.—[Mr. Foster.]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

LONDON DOCKLANDS RAILWAY (BECKTON) BILL
(By Order)

BRITISH RAILWAYS BILL (By Order)

Orders for Second Reading read.

To be read a Second time upon Thursday 5 February.

Oral Answers to Questions — EMPLOYMENT

Unemployment Trends

Chapman: asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement about the trend of unemployment over the last six months?

The Paymaster General and Minister for Employment (Mr. Kenneth Clarke): Over the last six months the trend in United Kingdom seasonally adjusted unemployment has been firmly downwards. The average monthly decrease over this period has been 17,000.

Mr. Chapman: In welcoming that fact, will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm that there has been a drop in the number of jobless over virtually the whole country and that the drop has been greater in the north than in the south? Will he also confirm that the trend in the number of jobless over the past three months represents the best performance over any three-month period in the last 14 years?

Mr. Clarke: I confirm the last point made by my hon. Friend. The fall in the number of jobless people over the past three months, which has been accelerating, is the fastest since 1973. I am glad to say that unemployment has been decreasing throughout the country, but it has been decreasing fastest in the north, the north-west, the west midlands and Wales, which is very good news.

Mr. Mason: Is the Minister aware that the rapid pit closure programme has caused economic distress in many

areas of the northern region, resulting in a much higher average rate of unemployment than in the rest of Britain? To what extent is he satisfied with the trend in finding jobs for the long-term unemployed, particularly in south Yorkshire and the Barnsley travel-to-work area?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that the impact of the closure of uneconomic and redundant coal mines is quite severe in the parts of south Yorkshire represented by the right hon. Gentleman. Therefore, I trust that the efforts of British Coal Enterprise Ltd. and of everyone else in the region to attract alternative employment will have rapid success. There are signs that new employment is coming along, but it will take a long time to fill the gaps left by the coal industry. I am delighted to say that the increase in the number of self-employed people has been faster in Yorkshire and Humberside than in any other part of England.

Mr. Holt: Will my right hon. and learned Friend confirm the accuracy of his Department's unemployment figures in the Library and thus show that the statement by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth) that unemployment in my constituency had risen was totally inaccurate and misleading to the House? The truth of the matter is that the unemployment figures have come down.

Mr. Clarke: I am delighted to confirm that. I followed the exchanges on unemployment in Langburgh between my hon. Friend and Opposition Members. My hon. Friend's knowledge of the area is unrivalled, and I am glad that he has been able to correct the attacks made by the hon. Member for Stockton, South (Mr. Wrigglesworth).

Mr. Leighton: Does the record not show that in each of the seven years in which the Government have carried out their chosen monetarist policies unemployment has soared and that when the Chancellor announced his U-turn or body-swerve in the autumn statement of increasecl public expenditure, unemployment reached a plateau and dipped ever so slightly? Does that not show that the Conservatives were wrong for seven years, that a small movement towards the Opposition's policies have had a favourable effect and that we need a Government who will carry out those policies with vigour and conviction?

Mr. Clarke: That is an original interpretation, but with his knowledge of these matters the hon. Gentleman knows that the total number of people working in Britain has been steadily rising since 1983. Britain has had a sustained recovery which is steadily producing more new jobs. Indeed, the increase in the number of new jobs is now overtaking the number of people coming into the market for the first time and looking for those jobs.
Our public spending plans could not be described as adopting the Opposition's policies. As I understand it, the Opposition are committed to increasing public spending by at least £10 billion, most of which would be spent on providing new jobs in the more Left-wing town halls up and down the country.

Mr. Soames: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that many skilled jobs are vacant in a number of factories in my constituency and that many people would be happy to come from the north to take up those excellent jobs? Will he try to do more to enable people to move from the north to the south with greater facility?

Mr. Clarke: I accept that skill shortages are already beginning to appear in large areas of the south, including my hon. Friend's constituency. We keep stepping up the adult training programme and increasing the number of people trained and we have just introduced the job training scheme to train those who have been unemployed for more than six months. I know that many people would like to move into my hon. Friend's constituency and take up the jobs, but it is to the housing market, including the private rented sector, that we must look for further reform to make that easier.

Mr. Evans: First, I apologise to the House for the absence of my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who, unfortunately, has had to seek emergency dental treatment. May I put it to the Paymaster General that, although the nation would welcome a genuine reduction in unemployment, everyone knows that, unfortunately, in the past six months the trend has had more to do with the fiddling of figures, upon which the Government have embarked, and the number of people on Government schemes, who now number nearly 1 million, which is almost as many as were unemployed in 1979 when the Government took office? What discussions has the Paymaster General had with the Prime Minister about her promise of a return to full employment? Can he give us some idea of the time scale envisaged?

Mr. Clarke: First, I send my genuine good wishes to the hon. Member for Kingston upon Hull, East (Mr. Prescott), who I know is suffering from a painful condition. I only hope that he does not barrack the dentist while he is receiving the treatment of which he is plainly in need.
I shall not use this opportunity yet again to go over the arguments about whether the figures are genuine or whether everything is accounted for by schemes. At an Action for Jobs breakfast my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said that she saw no reason why we should not look in the longer term to a return to full employment. If we can sustain the present rate of growth in the conomy, low inflation, good industrial relations and the continuing creation of additional jobs in the economy, that is a perfectly worthwhile objective, but we need to sustain the present recovery for quite a long time yet.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. May we have briefer questions so that we may then have briefer answers?

Tourism

Miss Fookes: asked the Paymaster General if he will outline what improvements to the system of vocational qualifications have been made in tourism-related qualifications in the last year.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. David Trippier): Good progress is being made to develop vocational qualifications within the tourism industry, in line with the objectives of the National Council for Vocational Qualifications. The Hotel and Catering Training Board is establishing a modular certification system through the Manpower Services Commission funded "Caterbase" project, and the

Association of British Travel Agents and City and Guilds are continuing to develop competence-based vocational qualifications in the retail travel and tour operator sectors.

Miss Fookes: I thank my hon. Friend for that constructive and helpful reply and for the zest and enthusiasm that he brings to tourism as an important economic sector, but may I remind him, if he needs reminding, that far too many people in the tourism industry still have no qualifications? Will my hon. Friend look to the longer term with regard to a wider spread of qualifications?

Mr. Trippier: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. We start from a position in which 94 per cent. of those employed in the industry have no qualifications whatever, and we need to put that right. That is why we are introducing the new modular Caterbase programme and why I am pleased that the sector has some 9,000 young people on YTS and some 2,000 trainees under the old JTS for 1985–86.

Mr. Wigley: Will the Minister assure the House that in the new ideas on which the Government are now working consideration will be given to having training modules that concentrate on the winter months, so that those involved in tourism, who are far too busy in the summer to take advantage of training, can have some complementary opportunities in the winter so as to balance the year-round opportunities for employment?

Mr. Trippier: I very much welcome the hon. Gentleman's constructive suggestion. I shall be meeting the chairman of the Hotel and Catering Industry Training Board and in the next two weeks I shall certainly discuss that. It is, of course, part of our new policy on tourism to try to extend the tourist season, which the hon. Gentleman, of course, would welcome.

Mr. Maxwell-Hyslop: I am delighted at my hon. Friend's announcement. Does that mean that the Government will now carry out the recommendation of the Select Committee on Trade and Industry to extend the tourist season by paying a third of the labour costs of experimental extensions of the season at either end by a total of one month? Will my hon. Friend bear in mind the fact that permanent pensionable employment is needed, not just seasonal peak employment?

Mr. Trippier: I am sorry to have to disappoint my hon. Friend, but I dealt in some detail with the Select Committee report in a full debate on the Floor of the House. As my hon. Friend knows, we were prepared to accept more than half the recommendations, but we had to reject that specific suggestion.

Dr. Godman: Despite what the Minister says, tourism is a valuable industry, characterised by threadbare training provision. When will the Government expand the leisure and tourist management training courses in colleges of higher education?

Mr. Trippier: I am pleased to say that I shall have an opportunity this Thursday to visit the Dorset Institute of Higher Education, which is one of the leading colleges in this sector. We have also been impressed with the number of places made available at polytechnic and university level. I agree with the hon. Gentleman that if we are to encourage more people to come into the industry and take up important management positions, tourism needs to be


recognised as a responsible and respectable sector by those institutes of higher education. I am delighted to tell the hon. Gentleman that I have frequent meetings with my colleagues in the Department of Education and Science on that subject.

MSC Schemes (East Midlands)

Mr. Leigh: asked the Paymaster General if he will make a statement on funding Manpower Services Commission schemes in the east midlands.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. John Lee): It is expected that the Manpower Services Commission will spend about £148 million on programme costs in the east midlands during the financial year 1986–87. The amounts for the major programmes are:



£ million


Youth training scheme
56


Adult training
11


Community programme
56


Enterprise allowance scheme
11

Mr. Leigh: With every young school leaver in Gainsborough this year being offered, for the first time in history, either a job or further education or training, does my hon. Friend agree that even the Opposition, with their twisted logic, will find it difficult to claim that we do not care about unemployment when, since 1979, in the east midlands alone more than £85 million has been spent on helping 1,500 firms to create 18,000 jobs?

Mr. Lee: My hon. Friend's figures are absolutely right. I hope that everyone, including the Opposition, will welcome the fact that by Easter everyone under 18 will have a guaranteed training place.

Mr. Corbett: Will the Minister confirm that he has ordered a 20p in the pound cut in funding for community programmes in the east midlands, the west midlands and elsewhere?

Mr. Lee: As far as the east midlands is concerned, there will be no significant change in funding.

Mr. Greg Knight: Does my hon. Friend accept that the YTS scheme in the east midlands and elsewhere is one of the most successful schemes in the world and shows that Britain is not only leading Europe in the provision of new jobs, but is leading Europe in the provision of relevant and successful training schemes?

Mr. Lee: I agree with my hon. Friend. The Government now have in place what are probably the most comprehensive employment and training schemes in the Western world.

YTS

Mr. Bruce: asked the Paymaster General how many young people have been followed up by the Manpower Services Commission area office staff since completing their YTS programme.

Mr. Trippier: Since YTS began in 1983, the commission's head office has arranged follow-up surveys asking YTS leavers about their experience on the programme and what they did on leaving. Initially, these

were sample surveys conducted by the MSC's own statisticians, but since April 1985 all YTS leavers have been surveyed by an independent research organisation.

Mr. Bruce: How many of those youngsters have progressed to useful jobs in an area related to their YTS training? Does the Minister acknowledge the concern that too many youngsters, especially those in areas of high unemployment, simply move from one scheme to another rather than find permanent employment related to the training that they are supposed to have received?

Mr. Trippier: The facts show that 57 per cent. of those on YTS go into work, 3 per cent. go on to full-time courses at college and training centres, 7 per cent. join another YTS course, 6 per cent. do something else and 28 per cent. register as unemployed.
The hon. Gentleman will be aware that in his part of the world, and in the travel-to-work area that covers his constituency, the percentage of youngsters who actually find work is much higher.

Mrs. Virginia Bottomley: Is my hon. Friend aware that at a time when training is increasingly important in all areas of employment, there has been a wide welcome for the extension of YTS, so that !no young person under the age of 18 need choose to be unemployed?

Mr. Trippier: I very much welcome my hon. Friend's comments. For those aged under 18, unemployment is no longer an option. That is something that we should broadcast from the rooftops.

Job Training Scheme

Ms. Clare Short: asked the Paymaster General what plans there are to evaluate and measure the effectiveness of the job training scheme in the 10 pilot areas.

Mr. Ron Davies: asked the Paymaster General how many people are presently receiving training under the new job training scheme within the pilot areas.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: On 26 January 1987, 1,008 people were taking part in the new job training scheme pilots. An interim evaluation of the scheme is already under way. The Manpower Services Commission will continue to monitor and evaluate the new job training scheme as it is extended nationally, and the commission's sub-group will oversee that process.

Ms. Short: Does the Paymaster General admit that he did not monitor the pilot schemes before going for expansion, because his purpose was to lower the unemployment figures, not to help the unemployed? Will he confirm that experience of the pilot schemes shows that there was difficulty with recruiting and a high drop-out rate, and that it was impossible to provide proper training with the money made available?
Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman admit that he misled the House about the attitudes of trade unions to the scheme? Their conditional approval was for a higher allowance. As the Government did not comply with that., that means that trade union leaders do not support the scheme.

Mr. Clarke: We carried out sufficient monitoring for it to be quite clear that the scheme was a valuable addition to what we are offering. We found no shortage of trainees wanting to join the scheme, no shortage of work


experience and no shortage of managing agents. As for the drop-out rate, as the hon. Lady describes it, 17 per cent. left before the end of the scheme, but that figure includes quite a number of people who left for the excellent reason that they had found a job. We believe this scheme to be a valuable addition that should be introduced as rapidly as possible.
We could have a sterile political debate. It is easy for me to point out to the hon. Lady that she and her hon. Friends want to delay the introduction of training schemes and the reduction of unemployment until after the election, but that is hardly a responsible attitude.
The TUC commissioners did and do support the scheme. They reserved their position on the amount of allowance to be paid, but they were much more supportive of the scheme than the Opposition in their initial reaction.

Mr. Ron Davies: If, as the Minister says, there is no shortage of applicants for the places available, will he guarantee that people will not be refused benefit if they refuse places on the scheme?

Mr. Clarke: No one is refused benefit just for refusing to take part in a programme or scheme. To be entitled to benefit, Parliament demands, as it has for the past 40 years, that people should demonstrate their continuing availability for work and should not refuse good offers of employment.

Mrs. Peacock: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that it makes sense to expand the new job training scheme as quickly as possible to provide many young people with the training that they need for the jobs that are now becoming available?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. It is pointless to tell unemployed people that they must wait for this successful scheme to be extended simply because the Labour party has decided that it needs further monitoring. I think that we are ready to go ahead.

Mr. Thurnham: As the job training scheme has been approved by the TUC, will Ron Todd not find it rather strange that Opposition Members are creating such a fuss about it?

Mr. Clarke: Unfortunately, one cannot be a fly on the wall in any discussions between Ron Todd and Opposition Members. The members of the TUC sub-group and the commission supported the scheme and its extension, subject to the proviso that the quality of the scheme should be maintained, a point with which the Government were in total agreement. The TUC reserved its conclusions with regard to the allowance. The Labour party is arguing about how much people will be paid on the scheme. That is entirely in line with the usual Labour party attitude on most of these things, but it does not represent a fundamental objection.

Mr. Ashley: How can the Minister claim success for this trial scheme when he has just confessed that there is a 17 per cent. drop-out rate? That does not make sense. Does he acknowledge that the newly extended training scheme simply will not work while it continues to try to use unemployed people as cheap labour?

Mr. Clarke: With 822 out of 1,008 still receiving training and benefiting from it in the pilot areas, it would be pointless to scrap the scheme or not to extend it because 100 or so have left the scheme, especially when some of

them left to take up jobs. I regret the Labour party's attacks on the scheme, which I believe are motivated solely by the fact that the Labour party is perplexed by the fall in unemployment and by the extension of training and new employment prospects and is therefore trying to delay the scheme until after the election for purely political reasons.

Mr. Butterfill: When so many people throughout the country and in my consitituency cannot get jobs because they do not have the necessary training, and when employers would otherwise employ them, is it not curious and irresponsible for the Opposition to say that the schemes are not good and to discourage people from obtaining the qualifications that would otherwise get them employment?

Mr. Clarke: My hon. Friend's last point is a very serious one and I agree with him. For years the Labour party opposed YTS and stopped many young people from getting the benefit of that scheme. If the Labour party opposes YTS it will dissuade some long-term unemployed from benefiting from that scheme. The Labour party is against it for purely party political reasons and is continuing to be irresponsible about these projects.

Benefits

Mr. Robert C. Brown: asked the Paymaster General how many referrals have been made to adjudication officers from newly unemployed claimants, from the date when form UB671 was introduced into unemployment benefit offices.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: The improved procedures which I announced on 28 October are designed to ensure that new benefit claimants satisfy the long-standing legal requirement for entitlement to benefit that the claimant should be available for work. The new procedures have now been introduced in all but a handful of unemployment benefit offices. By 26 December 1986, the latest date for which information is available, 12,688 cases had been referred to the independent adjudication authorities as a result of the new procedures.

Mr. Brown: Will the Minister tell us how many of the 12,000-odd people did not pursue their claims, how many claims were disallowed and how many people had bogus interviews on the basis of this form when interviewed for the restart programme?

Mr. Clarke: I hope that I can remember all those points. First, these are people who pursued their claims but had them referred to the adjudication officer because there were doubts about the claims. About 7 per cent. of new applicants do not pursue their claims, and of those who do, some claims are referred. These are early days, but of those referred so far we have adjudicated on about half—6,626—and 2,252 of those had their claims disallowed.
On the hon. Gentleman's final point, a form of this kind has always been used in cases of difficulty in relation to entitlement to benefit. The ancestor of the form that we are now using, and about which so much fuss has been made, can be traced back to 1947. Some of the same questions appear on that remarkably similar form.

Ms. Clare Short: Are the Government still using it?

Mr. Clarke: We still use it for guidance for staff where there are doubts about the availability for work, so that we can be consistent in offices up and down the country.

Mr. Brandon-Bravo: Is my right hon. and learned Friend aware that in my constituency duplicated leaflets, the printing of which is unattributable, have been distributed by pressure groups instructing people how to fill in—or not to fill in, as the case may be—the forms in question. They have also been used to instruct people in, or to discourage them from, filling in necessary information with regard to equal opportunities. Would my right hon. and learned Friend care to comment on that?

Mr. Clarke: I disapprove of people giving set answers. The implication of set answers is to tell the claimant, "Never mind telling the truth about your claim. If you give these answers regardless of the truth, you will get benefit." [Interruption.] My hon. Friend will notice that that was cheered by large numbers of Labour Members. The Labour party appears to have moved to the extraordinary position of saying that anyone is entitled to benefit, if he asks for it, without having to demonstrate that he is entitled to it. No doubt, as the Labour party has a very Left-wing candidate in Greenwich, it will campaign on that basis in the area in the near future. I do not think that it will get the electorate's support.

Mr. Evans: Will the Paymaster General admit that the leaflets that have been circulated are not "How to claim benefit if you are not entitled to it" but "How not to be tricked by the trick questions framed by the Department of Employment"? Is the right hon. and learned Gentleman aware that one of my constituents, who is typical of many, who has been unemployed for three years, who was offered three interviews more than 25 miles away from where he lives and who has no means of transport to those jobs, has had his benefit stopped? That is treating the unemployed with contempt.

Mr. Clarke: The questions on our form are not trick questions. They are remarkably similar to the questions that have always been asked and are wholly consistent with the rules that Parliament has laid down for entitlement to benefit. A Labour Act of Parliament—the last of such legislation—laid down availability for work as a condition of benefit. I am not clear from what the hon. Gentleman said whether he agrees that standard answers should be given. If, like his hon. Friends, he says that standard answers should be given, based on the suggestions of the Claimants' Union or others, he is advocating that people should claim benefit whether or not the claim is genuine and truthful, and that is a remarkable change of policy by the Labour party.

Labour Statistics

Mr. Knox: asked the Paymaster General how many people were out of work in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency at the most recent count.

Mr. Lee: On 11 December 1986 the number of unemployed claimants in the Staffordshire, Moorlands parliamentary constituency was 3,414.

Mr. Knox: Is my hon. Friend aware that unemployment in my constituency, although lower than in most constituencies, has risen substantially under Labour and Conservative Governments over the past 13 years? How does he explain that in an area where wages and salaries are low, productivity is high and labour relations are excellent?

Mr. Lee: I know of my hon. Friend's genuine and deep concern about the problems of unemployment generally in his constituency. The position is improving, even in his constituency. The number of unfilled vacancies is increasing and unemployment is slowly falling. Two job clubs will open soon—at Leek in March and at Cheadle later in the summer. I hope my hon. Friend agrees that there is an increasing skill shortage in his textile industry, just as there is in Lancashire. There is also a shortage of industrial land in his constituency on which firms can expand. I believe that the local authority is addressing its mind to that problem.

Skill Shortages

Mr. Jim Callaghan: asked the Paymaster General whether he will make a statement on skill shortages in British industry.

Mr. Trippier: My right hon. and learned Friend announced in the House last week a major new initiative for re-skilling Britain. The job training scheme will help unemployed people gain the skills now needed by employers in our expanding economy.

Mr. Callaghan: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer, but may I point out that, over the past 10 years, in the engineering and construction industries training for apprentices has almost collapsed, that in two other major key industries the number of trainee schemes has fallen by half and that the Government's schemes, such as those operated by the MSC and YTS, cannot cope with this problem? What will the hon. Gentleman do in the immediate future to rectify this problem?

Mr. Trippier: I think that the hon. Gentleman is guilty of massive exaggeration. No one would seek to deny at the Dispatch Box that there is a skill shortage. I would not even attempt to do so. But the figures show that fewer than 15 per cent. of firms currently expect output to be constrained by a shortage of skilled labour. That compares with 25 per cent. at a comparable point in the previous economic cycle in 1978–79 and with 50 per cent. during the last time the Labour party was in government.

Mr. Lawler: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is slightly ironic that the more the Government do to increase the number of people in training to fill skill shortages, the more the Opposition seem to protest?

Mr. Trippier: I could not agree more. The Opposition are in a dilemma. They complain, as the hon. Member for Heywood and Middleton (Mr. Callaghan) has done, that we need skills training, yet when we introduce new programmes, as we did last week, they complain. They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Meadowcroft: Has the Minister seen the interview with the Secretary of State in today's edition of the Yorkshire Post, in which he said that he would advise young unemployed persons to seek employment in the service sector or in tourism? If that is the case, is it any wonder that we have skill shortages in our manufacturing industry?

Mr. Trippier: I have heard my right hon. Friend say similar things in the past, which I must agree, in the sense that although we all recognise—somebody must say it from the Despatch Box—that manufacturing industry Hs the most important sector of the British economy and it


will be the wealth creator, we cannot see in Yorkshire, Lancashire or elsewhere in the United Kingdom that it will be a job creator in the future. Because of higher productivity per man and modern technology, manufacturing industry is more likely to shed labour, even though it is increasing its profitability.

Mr. Forman: Notwithstanding the £1·5 million that I think the Government have allocated on an annual basis to various relevant training programmes during their period in office, does my hon. Friend accept that there is room for improvement in private sector training? Will he consider recommending to his right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer either further tax relief for private sector training or, possibly, adult training allowances of some kind?

Mr. Trippier: I am happy to draw what my hon. Friend has said to the attention of my right hon. Friend the Chancellor. My hon. Friend is absolutely right about the earlier point that he made. It is important for us to recognise what the private sector is doing in training. Recently, I was greatly impressed by the work that it has been doing, particularly in distance learning. We now see a new module coming off the stocks approximately on a weekly basis.

Mr. Sheerman: Will the Minister accept that the Opposition have never been against youth training and that we are not against but are in favour of quality training? We do not believe that a scheme such as the job training scheme, which offers three weeks' training in six months of experience, matches up to the desperate skill shortages that are reported in the engineering, construction, and information and technology industries. Is it not a fact that the Government have destabilised and destroyed skills training and put nothing in its place and that it is about time they started to train people to compete?

Mr. Trippier: The hon. Gentleman must admit that if the JTS leads to a recognised qualification, or part thereof, that is respected by employers it is a move in the direction that he wishes to see. I am well aware of the first point that he made. Her Majesty's Opposition did not oppose the introduction of the MSC scheme or the youth training scheme. Nonetheless, they spend an inordinate length of time trying to rubbish it on every conceivable occasion.

Unemployed Centres

Mr. Hayes: asked the Paymaster General what representations he has received regarding the funding of unemployed centres; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Lee: We have received a number of representations from hon. Members and others about the value of funding centres for the unemployed under the community programme.

Mr. Hayes: I am sure that my hon. Friend is as dismayed as I am that he has been unable to receive a categorical assurance that the small minority of Left-wing activists who have wrecked the Harlow unemployed centre will not be involved in the management of it. Will he reassure unemployed people—that is the vulnerable people in Harlow who have been cynically manipulated—that there will be help from the MSC in other ways?

Mr. Lee: The centre in Harlow was given repeated warnings not to display political literature and was given

every opportunity to put its house in order. According to the Wednesday 28 January edition of the Morning Star, a certain Danny Purton of the management committee said:
We are not prepared to censure posters put up by the unemployed, unless racist or sexist.
In other words, anything of a political nature is acceptable to him. Therefore, the centre will cease to operate, because funding will be withdrawn. My hon. Friend asked about the innocent people who will suffer because of the mindless minority. We shall do everything that we can, via the MSC and existing programmes, to be helpful and sympathetic.

Ms. Richardson: I understand that the Harlow unemployed centre was closed down very largely because of literature that was placed there by the campaign for action for benefits, a worthy organisation that is drawing attention to people who need benefits. Will the Minister ensure that, generally speaking, there is sufficient funding for unemployed centres to ensure that women who have either lost their chance of training in non-traditional skills, or who will never have a chance because of the closure of manual skill courses for women at skillcentres, can be provided with advice?

Mr. Lee: The hon. Lady's question goes somewhat wider than the question on the Order Paper. Via the MSC, we are continuing to fund 83 unemployed centres, at a cost of around £3·5 million per annum. There are about 670 places and they are equally available to women and men.

Job Creation

Mr. Yeo: asked the Paymaster General how many new jobs have been created since 1983.

Mr. Kenneth Clarke: There were about 1,119,000 more people in work in September 1986 than there were in March 1983

Mr. Yeo: I congratulate my right hon. and learned Friend and, indeed, the whole Government on that achievement. As the labour force is likely to grow very much more slowly in the next five or six years than it has grown since 1983, even if the present trend of job creation is merely maintained, is it not right that we can look forward to a significant reduction in unemployment?

Mr. Clarke: I agree with my hon. Friend. There have been more people in work in every quarter since 1983, and the growth in new jobs is now outstripping the number of school leavers and women who are entering the market for the first time. That is giving rise to this extremely encouraging downward trend in unemployment, and there is every prospect that that trend will be maintained.

Mr. James Hamilton: Is the Minister aware that instead of creating jobs in my constituency there has been a demolition job, with the ruthless closure of the Caterpillar Tractor Company, without any consultation with the union, and that 1,221 jobs are involved? If the Minister obtains all the information from the Secretary of State for Scotland, he will find that the Department was taken for a buggy ride as well as myself. I notice that there was a £62·5 million development programme, yet at the end of the day the plant was ruthlessly closed. Will the Minister take that on board now and do something about it?

Mr. Clarke: I have been following the case. I agree entirely with all the comments of my right hon. and


learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland about this very unfortunate proposal. In other cases where there have been unavoidable closures of old, traditional industries that have outlived their competitiveness or have failed to keep their place in the market, there has been the steady replacement of large employers by new jobs, the expansion of existing businesses and particularly a growth in self-employment and small businesses. That has to be encouraged, particularly in Scotland. On balance, in Scotland we are now seeing a growth in the total number of people who are employed. I agree that efforts will have to be redoubled in the hon. Member's constituency if this American firm goes ahead with the proposal about which he and others are arguing.

Mr. Spencer: Does my right hon. and learned Friend agree that in those areas that are covered by inner city task forces the power of local authorities to insert local labour only clauses should be more extensively used?

Mr. Clarke: We have taken advantage of the inner city projects to provide work experience and training for local people as well as to refurbish buildings in a number of places, most notably by means of a large contract in Birmingham. If we could obtain the co-operation of all local authorities in the inner city task force areas, I am sure that we could build on that kind of approach. My hon. and learned Friend knows that in Leicester we continue to face the implacable hostility of the city council and the total indecision of the county council. I keep hoping that that will improve, but undoubtedly it slows up the progress that we are making and slows up the provision of jobs and training for local people.

Ms. Clare Short: Does the Minister agree that there are still fewer people in employment in Britain now than there were in 1979, that the decline in employment in manufacturing is more than 2 million and is still continuing, that 500,000 of the so-called new jobs are in self-employment—largely people who had good wages, but who are now struggling to survive—that employment for men is still declining, and has continued to decline since 1983, and that 200,000 of the so-called new jobs are simply an expansion of the community programme?

Mr. Clarke: In 1979 we had hyper-inflation, a great deal of British industry was over-manned and uncompetitive and we entered a severe world recession. Undoubtedly, that permanently lost us many jobs. However, since 1983 there has been a sustained growth in the number of people working in this country. There is nothing wrong with the fact that half those people are in self-employment, despite the fact that the Labour party is hostile to the whole idea that people might work on their own account. There is nothing wrong with the fact that more women are taking up part-time jobs, although that accounts for only about a quarter of the growth that is taking place. Now that we have growth with low inflation and better industrial relations, we are seeing more employment and falling unemployment.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRIME MINISTER

Engagements

Mr. Michael Hirst: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

The Prime Minister (Mrs. Margaret Thatcher): This morning I had meetings with ministerial colleagues and others. In addition to my duties in this House, I shall be having further meetings later today.

Mr. Hirst: In relation to the Zircon affair, will my right hon. Friend confirm that the Metropolitan police asked the BBC to co-operate but the BBC refused to do so unless the police went through all the legal processes?—[Interruption.] Is she aware that when asked by the police where the relevant tapes and files were held, the BBC replied to the effect, "You will have to take the lot"?—[Interruption.] Can she also confirm that the BBC's solicitor liaised in the drafting of the warrant and that information and the relevant material that was held in Glasgow was disclosed to the police by Duncan Campbell himself?

The Prime Minister: I am sure that the House will be very interested in what my hon. Friend has to say. However, he will know that these are not matters for Her Majesty's Government—[Interruption.] It is for the police to decide whether to apply for a search warrant and for the courts to decide whether to grant the application. The Government do not give orders to the police as to how—[Interruption]—when, and where the law should be applied.

Mr. Kinnock: Does the Prime Minister recall saying 10 days ago that the courts are very rightly concerned to protect the liberties of the people and that they will not just give a blanket injunction not to publish? What is her view of action which results in the blanket confiscation of five films and other material, which nobody ever suggested relate to national security, with all the consequent prohibition of the right to publish?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General said in a written reply on 29 January 1987:
On Friday 23 January 1987 the Director of Public Prosecutions, at the request of the Attorney-General, asked the Metropolitan police to investigate possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911 arising out of the publication in the New Statesman magazine of a report entitled 'The Parliamentary bypass operation'."—[Official Report, 29 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 320.]
Clearly, it is a criminal case under the Official Secrets Act. As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, in criminal cases it is for the police to decide whether to apply for a search warrant, and it is for the courts to decide whether to grant the application. The police did decide to apply for a search warrant and it was the courts which decided to grant the application. That has never been a matter for the Government, for past Home Secretaries or for past Secretaries of State for Scotland, and it is not a matter for the present Government.

Mr. Kinnock: Does that reply not make it clear that, contrary to what the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, all this action has been initiated directly by the Attorney-General, one of the Prime Minister's Ministers? Why is it that a few months ago a discussion with the BBC was, in the Prime Minister's words, sufficient to stop one film, but it is now found necessary to undertake an invasion of the BBC to stop five films? Is it not the case that since 22 January every action by the Government has been prompted, not by considerations of national security, but by an obsession to save the Prime Minister's face?

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman is deliberately trying to muddle the injunction with matters of criminal law. He knows full well that decisions to prosecute on matters under the criminal law are for the Attorney-General in his prosecuting capacity, and not for the Government in any way. It would be wholly wrong if they were. The right hon. Gentleman knows full well that it is for the police to decide whether to apply for a search warrant; the police took the decision to apply. It is for the courts to decide whether to grant the application; the courts decided to grant it. I would have thought that, having agreed that a vital matter of national security was at stake, the right hon. Gentleman would also agree that the police were right to investigate how the information was leaked. Instead, he and his party are now once again attacking the police.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister has good cause to know that I shall do everything to safeguard national security—[Interruption.]—but she also has good cause to know that I shall never protect her from the effects of her incompetence and the injustice that she perpetrates.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman will do everything except support the police in carrying out—[Interruption.]—their independent, impartial duties. Their duties are to the law. They carry out their duties impartially, and how they carry them out is not a matter for the Government. The day the Government direct the police about what they do or how they carry out their duties will be the day the rule of law will die, and, with it, freedom.

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a serious matter.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I call Mr. Kinnock.

Mr. Kinnock: The Prime Minister is killing the rule of law and with it the reputation of the police. Why does she not stand up and admit that she is the initiator of this action and that it has nothing to do with national security? Is she not big enough to admit that she is trying to cover up her incompetence with this injustice?

The Prime Minister: As usual, the right hon. Gentleman is completely muddling a civil action or injunction with the issue of the right of the criminal law to investigate how secret information came into unauthorised hands. The latter is a matter for the Attorney-General in his legal capacity; it is not a matter for the Government. [Interruption.] It is no good the right hon. Gentleman shouting at me in that hysterical fashion. The criminal law is a matter for the Attorney-General, not the Government.

Mr. Heseltine: Does my right hon. Friend recognise that it is the overwhelming opinion of the House that a serious breach of national security has taken place and that the police are right to investigate it in every way they consider possible? Does she agree that the Leader of the Opposition only reveals his ignorance of government in pretending that it is in some way a political direction which tells the police how to carry out their responsibilities?

The Prime Minister: Yes, my right hon. Friend is correct. The Government do not give orders to the police as to how, when or where to enforce the law, nor do they

wish to have any powers to do so. If any Government wanted to do so, that would be the end of the rule of law and freedom in this country.

Mr. Steel: As the Prime Minister continues to reject the idea of creating a senior parliamentary Committee on security issues—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"]-will she say what objective test there is of what constitutes national security, or do we just have to accept that it is what the Prime Minister says it is at any given moment?

The Prime Minister: As the right hon. Gentleman is aware, the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition first said that if a Government say that there is a serious matter of national security at stake, their word must be taken, certainly by the Leader of Her Majesty's Opposition. The right hon. Member for Tweeddale, Ettrick and Lauderdale (Mr. Steel) will also be aware that the Government whom he supported and kept in power issued a White Paper on the Official Secrets Act 1911. That White Paper, issued in 1978, said:
There is likely to be a broad measure of agreement that information about defence measures and equipment deserves to be protected by the criminal law.
The White Paper continued to state that matters in the legislation that was then proposed for replacing the official Secrets Act:
should apply to official information relating to matters which concern or affect the defence or security of the realm, including in particular those matters set out in the paragraphs below … military weapons, stores and equipment of all kinds, including nuclear weapons, ships, aircraft, vehicles, communications systems and all means of warfare;
The Opposition seem to have forgotten that White Paper.

Mrs. Ann Winterton: To change the subject, Mr. Speaker, and bearing in mind the firemen's strike at Manchester airport, which is inconveniencing thousands of the travelling public in the north-west of England, does my right hon. Friend think that the time is right to introduce legislation to make such strikes illegal in essential services?

The Prime Minister: I know that this matter comes up from time to time and that many right hon. and hon. Members would like to introduce such legislation, if it could be made effective. It is not easy to make it effective, as many of us know. The matter is being further reviewed by the Government now because, unlike the Opposition, we believe that the public need protection and that the unions should not hold the public to ransom.

Mr. McNamara: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McNamara: Is it not about time that the right hon. Lady came clean about the activities of the Attorney-General and his dining with people who are subject to criminal inquiries? [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh!"] Is she aware that the Attorney-General had Mr. Duncan Campbell as his guest at the Garrick in 1985 and that on 17 July last year, he had lunch with Mr. Duncan Campbell at the BBC's expense—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh"]—to discuss the "Secret Society" series? Is she further aware that, amidst the documents seized by the special branch, was the Attorney-General's note of thanks and Mr. Campbell's full note of that discussion? Should not that note now be put in the public domain?

The Prime Minister: I believe that my right hon. and learned Friend the Solicitor-General effectively dealt with that matter in the House at the beginning of his speech when we had a debate the other day.

Mr. Sayeed: Will my right hon. Friend find time to read the report of yesterday's debate on the Royal Navy? When she does, she will recognise and understand the widespread concern that exists over the decline of our maritime capability. At the same time, she will note many practical suggestions that have been made to reverse that decline. Will she urge those suggestions on her right hon. Friends?

The Prime Minister: I am aware of the concern caused by that matter. Even during a period when the capital allowances were very generous, many ships were flagged out to different countries. We are particularly concerned that there should be sufficient officers and men of the merchant marine, and for that reason my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Transport made his announcement a few weeks ago about helping with fares to enable them to fly hack at the Government's expense, to ensure that we have enough.

Mr. McWilliam: asked the Prime Minister if she will list her official engagements for Tuesday 3 February.

The Prime Minister: I refer the hon. Gentleman to the reply that I gave some moments ago.

Mr. McWilliam: Is the Prime Minister aware of the statement by the Archbishop of Canterbury that there is an inflammable mixture of frustration, lack of hope and helplessness in the urban communities? Is that not a damning condemnation of the policies of her Government?

The Prime Minister: It so happens that I read the entire—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I ask the House to give the Prime Minister a fair hearing.

The Prime Minister: I read the entire report of the debate in another place the other day and found it all interesting, including all the speeches and the reply of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment. I also found interesting the speech of another Member in the other place who said that if in 1979 we had said that £1 billion would be spent on the inner cities to assist them, it would have been thought that that would solve the problems. Since 1979 some £2·2 billion has been spent on the inner cities. That is evidence that it is not money alone that will solve that fundamental problem.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: I hope that hon. Members will raise genuine points of order that I can deal with and that it will not be a continuation of Question Time.

Mr. Rowe: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I understand the Leader of the Opposition's desperate need to reinforce—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. That is just what I was hoping the hon. Gentleman would not say.

Mr. Robin Cook: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wish to raise the matter of tabling documents before the House. Before I do so I refer you to page 433 of "Erskine May" where it is written:
A Minister of the Crown may not read or quote from a despatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he

is prepared to lay it upon the Table … A Minister who summarises a correspondence, but does not actually quote from it, is not bound to lay it upon the Table.
I refer you, Mr. Speaker, to the correspondence quoted by the Solicitor-General at the end of Tuesday's debate. You will recall that that was a direct quotation by the Solicitor-General, not a summary of the letter. It is now evident that there were material omissions from the quotation, notably the concluding passage, which states:
Look forward to seeing you on Thursday. Yours ever, Michael.
I put it to you that it would be appropriate for the House to request that that correspondence be laid upon the Table on two counts. First, such a step would be in accordance with the precedent clearly set out in "Erskine May". Secondly, it has direct and relevant bearing on the debate we are about to commence, in that it demonstrates that last July the Attorney-General was in discussion with Mr. Campbell concerning a film that special branch found it necessary to impound at the weekend. In view of the extraordinary contradiction clearly revealed in the correspondence, is the House not entitled to see both letters?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman correctly draws the attention of the House and of myself to "Erskine May". However, the item quoted was a letter and not a state paper or a dispatch. I see no reason why it should he laid.

Mr. Beaumont-Dark: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Bearing in mind your proper ruling that there should not be a continuation of Question Time, and also bearing in mind that we have a debate to follow, which you rightly ruled on, of three hours, is it right that half of Question Time should be taken up with points essentially concerning that debate? How, in a short Question Time, do other important matters get discussed? Is it right for trailers to go on and on and on?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows that I have no control over what is said provided it is in order, and it was in order.

Mr. Squire: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You are, of course, the defender of the rights of Back Benchers, who make up the majority of this House. Ever since I have been in this House I have noticed that during Question Time, particularly that of the Prime Minister, there has tended to be an average of three questions from the Opposition Front Bench rather than two. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, that you give careful consideration to the average being two questions and the exception being three rather than four?

Mr. Speaker: Order. Let me deal with one thing at a time. I think that the hon. Gentleman's arithmetic is faulty. If he will go to the Library he will see that the average has been much nearer four to five than three, and that is what I try to achieve for Back-Benchers.

Mr. Bell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Arising out of the response given to the question put by my hon. Friend the Member for Kingston upon Hull, North (Mr. McNamara), who referred to certain alleged lunches at the Garrick club between Mr. Duncan Campbell and the Attorney-General—

Mr. Speaker: Yes, but that is an extension of Question Time, and I have already ruled one hon. Member out of


order. I must say to the House that we have a busy day ahead of us, with a very important debate. I can rule only on matters that are directly my responsibility.

Mr. Nicholls: rose—

Mr. Harris: rose—

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order, Mr. Nicholls.

Mr. Nicholls: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, arising out of your statement. You have said on many occasions that you are the guardian of Back-Bench liberties. I make no complaint about the fact that I was not able to catch your eye today, but the guidance that I am asking for is this. The fact that I was not able to catch your eye today—and many hon. Members on both sides of the House were not able to do so either—was directly because of the amount of time taken up by the Leader of the Opposition. Surely you should do something about the fact that the Leader of the Opposition cannot control his temper and ask a concise question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think I mistook the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Hornchurch (Mr. Squire) a moment ago. I think I misinterpreted what the hon. Gentleman was saying. The average number of Back Benchers called at Prime Minister's Question Time is five and, on one occasion, as many as 15 on one day. The hon. Gentleman was referring to supplementary questions by the Leader of the Opposition. A certain discretion is and always has been given to the Front Bench.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. When my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised his point of order with you and you gave the reply, you may have noticed that, at the point when you were replying to my hon. Friend, the Attorney-General advanced towards the Despatch Box and, having got there, the Prime Minister obviously told him not to open his mouth.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that I am not responsible for hon. Members

who may be entering or leaving the Chamber. As far as I am concerned an hon. Member is called only when I call him from the Chair.

Mr. Harris: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. As the procedures of this House are largely based on precedent, could you confirm that the fact that the Leader of the Opposition was called on four occasions during Prime Minister's Question Time—the first time this has ever happened in this House—does not set a precedent for the future?

Mr. Speaker: I have already dealt with that. The House knows that this is not a precedent. Leaders of the Opposition have on occasion—I confess not often—been called four times, and that is perfectly in order.

Mr. Skinner: I have not finished my point of order.

Mr. Strang: Further to your ruling, Mr. Speaker, on the point of order raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook). Would it be of help to the House if you could clarify the distinction between a letter signed by a member of the Government on official business and an official document?

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) quoted from "Erskine May." That which was quoted by the Solicitor-General was a letter and not a state document or a dispatch. I have nothing further to add to what I have already said.

Mr. Skinner: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I think we should move on because we have an important day ahead of us.

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must tell the hon. Gentleman that he did not get his point of order in order on the first occasion, and it was not a point of order.

Mr. Skinner: It is a point of order.

Mr. Speaker: I am not prepared to take it.

Freehold Entitlement

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to extend the right of enfranchisement to resident leaseholders of properties excluded by reason of their rateable value
As I do not think that this is a very controversial proposal, I shall make my remarks as brief as I can.
When Parliament passed the important Leasehold Reform Act 1967, it conferred the right of home ownership on residents in houses let on leases of 21 years or more and gave the benefit of home ownership to many hundreds of thousands of people in all parts of the country. But the Act contained an anomaly. It excluded a substantial number of people living in the most expensive properties. After the new rating assessments which were made in 1973, these properties were those in the Greater London area whose rateable value was in excess of £1,500 and elsewhere in excess of £750. Therefore, there are now still thousands of people in inner London and, I would imagine, a considerable number of people in other parts of the country—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I must ask the House to give the hon. Gentleman a fair hearing.

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams: There are thousands of people in inner London and a considerable number of people, I believe, in other parts of the country who are deprived of the right of home ownership because their properties have this high rateable value.
I calculate that in Kensington, which I have the honour to represent, there are hundreds of properties which are affected by this exclusion from the right of enfranchisement. I think that the House will agree that this is a totally unfair and unreasonable form of discrimination. Indeed, I am sure that no one would wish this situation to continue. The object of my Bill, therefore, is to remove this barrier of the upper limit which is set in relation to the rateable value.
I should like, briefly, to make three points. There is no fear that if my Bill were passed it would result in sudden,

drastic changes in the appearance of areas which Londoners value as they are because— certainly in Kensington and, I think, in other parts of London where the Bill would apply—the local authorities have already declared conservation areas: I do not think that the objection which concerned Parliament in 1967 any longer has any force.
On the question of valuation, I should like to make it perfectly clear that I am not proposing any element of confiscation. The Bill which I hope to introduce will contain a formula which I think should be based on highly qualified professional advice and which will be scrupulously fair to both the parties. There is no question of the owners of the freehold being obliged to part with their property on unreasonable terms.
Thirdly, I should like to say to those who fear that the passing of my Bill would mean the end of long leasehold as a form of tenure, that I do not regard that as a matter for very deep regret. The time has come to stop playing Normans and Saxons with regard to home ownership. Everyone should be entitled to own the home in which they live and I am not content that there should be large numbers of people living in Kensington— and other parts of inner London—who are second-rate citizens in that respect. We do not want any second-rate citizens in Kensington or in any other part of the country.
Everyone should be entitled to the benefit of home ownership. I hope, therefore, that the House will give me leave to introduce my Bill.
Question put and agreed to.
Bill ordered to be brought in by Sir Brandon Rhys Williams, Mr. Gerald Bowden, Mr. Hugh Dykes, Sir Geoffrey Finsberg, Mr. John Heddle and Mr. John Wheeler.

FREEHOLD ENTITLEMENT

Sir Brandon Rhys Williams accordingly presented a Bill to extend the right of enfranchisement to resident leaseholders of properties excluded by reason of their rateable value: And the same was read the First time; andl ordered to be read a Second time upon Friday 3 April and to be printed. [Bill 62.]

Special Branch Activities

Mr. Tony Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Page 269 of "Erskine May" deals with the sound broadcasting of parliamentary proceedings. The BBC is deeply involved in this issue. Last night, the 9 o'clock BBC news led with 13 minutes on the subject, whereas the ITN news had a much shorter display. The BBC had the item first, whereas ITN had it second. Of the last four emergency debates, only one has been broadcast. I am not saying that this debate should or should not be broadcast, but there is no doubt that the BBC is a participant in the controversy, and has a vested interest in broadcasting the debate.
Page 269 of "Erskine May" says that the broadcasting of debates should be
subject to directions of the House.
How can the House have some sort of control over the broadcasting of these subjects, in which the BBC is deeply involved and has a vested interest in ensuring a disproportionate amount of publicity?
It may be that this matter should be referred to the appropriate Committee, but I understand that the issue is subject to the directions of the House. What action can the House take today to decide whether the debate should or should not be broadcast? At the very least, the matter should be discussed.

Mr. Eric Forth: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. Can you say whether any authorities within the House were approached by the BBC before its decision to broadcast the debate was taken, or whether any authorities in the House chose to deliberate on the matter before the BBC decided to broadcast it? Surely it is not good enough that we are faced with a fait accompli and that what my hon. Friend has proposed will come after the decision and after the broadcast has taken place

Mr. Speaker: If both hon. Gentlemen feel strongly about this, their proper course is to bring it to the attention of the Broadcasting Committee. There is a great deal of interest in this debate, not only in the House but in the country at large, and we should proceed with the debate.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is an important debate. Does the hon. Gentleman have a helpful and genuine point of order?

Sir Kenneth Lewis: Do you agree, Mr. Speaker, that it is no bad thing that the debate should be heard by the country?

Mr. Roger Gale: May we have your undertaking, Mr. Speaker, that not only will the debate be broadcast but that it will all be broadcast?

Mr. Speaker: I do not turn up the knobs.

Mr. Gerald Kaufman: I beg to move,
That this House do now adjourn.
We are debating events which took place during the past few days, but those events trace back their origins to many months ago. It was in November 1985 that BBC Scotland commissioned Mr. Duncan Campbell to make a six-part series called "The Secret Society".
The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) yesterday traduced the BBC for engaging Mr. Campbell, and Mr. Campbell for being the kind of journalist that he is. Mr. Campbell certainly has a reputation for being troublesome, but he has been just as troublesome to Labour Governments as to Conservative Governments, and I have no doubt that he will be so again as soon as he is given the opportunity. That is the mark of an independent journalist.

Mr. Ray Whitney: rose—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: The mark of an independent journalist is to be troublesome to everybody.
It was in June last year that Mr. Campbell, in an interview, raised the secret Zircon project—

Mr. Whitney: Is the right hon. Gentleman telling the House that if he had been Home Secretary instead of the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) he would not have been party to the prosecution of Mr. Campbell? Is he also saying that the BBC should have entrusted a programme on the nation's secrets to a man with such a record?

Mr. Kaufman: The hon. Gentleman has not been listening to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister made it clear that Home Secretaries are not parties to prosecutions.
It was in June last year that Mr. Campbell, in an interview, raised the secret Zircon project with Sir Ronald Mason, the ex-chief scientist at the Ministry of Defence, and it was about that time that the Government became aware of the projected "Secret Society" series. The Prime Minister confirmed that in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington (Mr. Campbell-Savours) on Monday last week.
In that same answer the Prime Minister said:
The Government became aware … of the intention to include specific material on a secret defence project in October 1986.
October 1986 was four months ago. It was then that alarm bells should have been ringing in the Ministry of Defence, in the Attorney-General's office, and in Downing street itself. If specific material relating to a secret defence project was, in October 1986, known to be in the possession of Mr. Campbell and others, surely that was the time when, in the interests of national security, Mr. Campbell and others should have been questioned, warrants should have been issued, any necessary searches should have been made, and, if appropriate, persons should have been charged under the Official Secrets Act. But none of those actions was taken.
Instead, all that happened, in the Prime Minister's own words, was:
Discussions then took place between the Government and the BBC, which subsequently decided on grounds of national security not to show the material on the project."—[Official Report, 26 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 18.]
So all that the Government did to protect the nation's security was to have a friendly chat with the BBC and remain apparently content that secret material should still be available to possibly numerous non-authorised persons, none of whom, including Mr. Campbell, was questioned, let alone charged. That surely was a culpably negligent way in which to treat secret material affecting national security.
The Government by then knew that five other programmes were to form part of "The Secret Society" series, yet they expressed no concern about them. They had no discussions with the BBC about them. They made no request whatever to the BBC not to show any or all of those five other programmes.
Last week the Prime Minister sought to obtain credit from the Government's actions when she boasted to my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition:
In October 1986 the Government learned of the BBC's intention to show specific material on a secret defence project. Discussions took place between the Government and the BBC, which subsequently decided, as a result of those discussions, not to show the material on the project. Therefore, the discussions were successful.
The Prime Minister clearly thought that that point was so telling that she repeated it several times. She said:
The discussions with the BBC were successful.
A little later she said:
As a result of the action which the Government took … the BBC did not show that film."—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 177–78.]
If the Government were as successful as the Prime Minister claims, presumably the success was a complete success. Presumably the Government had no other concerns about the "Secret Society" programmes. Presumably they had no misgivings on security grounds with the other five programmes in this series.
On 22 January the Foreign Secretary invited my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition and other Labour Members to a security briefing on the Zircon project, following which the Labour Members, as the Prime Minister mentioned again this afternoon, accepted that national security was sufficiently involved in the material of that programme.
The acceptance of that contention has been used again today for partisan purposes by the Prime Minister, but characteristically she has never expressed the tiniest acknowledgement of the concern of the Leader of the Opposition for national security. None of the Labour Members would contemplate revealing what was communicated to them at that secret briefing, but they are perfectly free to disclose what was not communicated to them at that briefing. Therefore, let me make it absolutely clear that no indication of any kind was given to my right hon. Friends that national security was involved in any way in any of the other five programmes.
That was not surprising in view of the content of the programmes which is as follows. Data: the threat posed by computer data banks to the citizen's right of privacy and whether the current legal safeguards are adequate. Powers: an account of the plans which exist for the government of Britain in a wartime emergency. Police: an account of the work of the Association of Chief Police Officers. Radar: an account of the problems which have attended the updating of Britain's air defences since the war and includes contributions from the Royal Air Force. One issue which some people may regard as being detrimental to national security is a programme about the work of certain Cabinet Committees.
However, the Government did not complain about any of that, so why, in investigating the security leak involving the Zircon programme, have the police been ordered to seize material relating to the five other programmes?

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The right hon. Gentleman said that the police were "ordered". Would he like to say by whom?

Mr. Kaufman: I shall come to that matter in my own time and in my own way.
Today's Daily Mail claims that already material seized from the BBC last weekend contains "red hot secrets". lf that is so, we must face the fact that those red hot secrets have been lying around in the BBC's offices in Glasgow for months, available to any Soviet agent who wanders in.
If that newspaper story is true, the Government are once again revealed as culpably negligent with the nation's security. If it is not true, and if the Government's inaction on these programmes and this material is properly based on acceptance that they are innocuous in security terms, we must ask why, at this late stage, material without security implications has been seized in a massive police fishing expedition, with the use of a catch-all warrant going far beyond the accepted scope for such searches.
Therefore, there are already key questions that the Home Secretary must answer when he replies. As it was known for months that Mr. Duncan Campbell was in possession of secret material that the Government regard as damaging to national security, why was no action taken until two months ago? As not only Mr. Campbell's informant or informants but Mr. Campbell himself must, if the Government are right, be in breach of section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911, why have arrests not been made and why have charges not been brought? Why, instead, have there been those vengeful and spiteful fishing expeditions against Mr. Campbell and the New Statesman?
I understand that when the police called on Mr. Campbell the other weekend some of them spent part of their time reading back issues of the New Stateman. If they had gone back for enough, they would have had a worthwhile intellectual experience.
The New Statesman is a ready-made victim because of being what the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine)—a peculiar and rare example of a rat trying to jump back on to a sinking ship—labelled an organ of Left-wing opinion. The Prime Minister was ready to echo her errant right hon. Friend's opinion last week, but for a very different purpose. She said, in response to my right hon. Friend the Member for Islwyn (Mr. Kinnock):
I suggest to the right hon. Gentleman that I think he should direct his strictures at Left-wing organs such as the New Statesman which have, in spite of the fact that the BBC refused to show the film, deliberately attempted to release material which is contrary to national security.
The right hon. Lady emphasised her point later by saying:
The action of the Government prevented the showing or the film"—
she realised that her slip was showing and corrected herself—
or the BBC agreed not to show the film. The trouble has arisen because of Left-wing organs like the New Statesman."—[Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 178–181.]
So the New Statesman was the baddie in contrast with the BBC, which was the goodie. The BBC co-operated with the Government and, at the Government's instigation, refused to show the film. The Prime Minister now shows her gratitude to that public-spirited organisation, which complied with her wishes and was so patriotic in comparison with the extremist New Statesman by letting loose the special branch on the BBC's headquarters in Glasgow—where, among the van-loads of subversive material that was taken away was archive film of the state opening of Parliament.
Ministers, including the Prime Minister, will say, "It was not us." Yesterday the House was treated to the extraordinary spectacle of the Secretary of State for Scotland denying any responsibility by anyone for the police raid on the BBC. He implied that it had taken place as the result of a process of spontaneous combustion. I would have said divine inspiration, but the raid was carried out by the Metropolitan police, not the Greater Manchester police.
The Secretary of State for Scotland was clearly upset that the exploding parcel of answering Parliament on this difficult issue had landed in his lap. He showed that it was nothing to do with him by making it clear in his first sentence that the action was by the Metropolitan police, and then pointedly mentioning the Metropolitan police a further eight times. He also specifically complained, on a couple of occasions, that the private notice question had been been put to him. However, Mr. Speaker, both you and the Secretary of State are aware that it was the Home Secretary whom we wished to question. You will also be aware of the reasons why that was not possible, through no fault of ours. The fact that the Home Secretary never wanted to answer was obvious yesterday from the frantic way in which he repeatedly gesticulated towards the Secretary of State for Scotland whenever we indicated that he, the Home Secretary, might have a responsibility.
Of course, as police authority for London, the Home Secretary has personal and parliamentary responsibility for every action by the Metropolitan police. However, it is not only the Home Secretary who is answerable to this House for what has taken place; it is the entire Government under the leadership of the Prime Minister. Therefore, I hope that the Home Secretary will answer— or deny if what I put to him is inaccurate— our contention that the Prime Minister, at a meeting in her room in this House the week before last, with the Attorney-General present, gave the Foreign Secretary direct responsibility for clearing up the mess left by the Zircon bungle. It is now said that it was at a meeting chaired by the Foreign Secretary, and attended by, among others, the Home Secretary and the Attorney-General, that policy decisions were taken on how to handle the Zircon problem.
When the Home Secretary replies, will he specifically state whether such a meeting took place? Only if he denies that will we be convinced, and silence will be taken as confirmation— [Interruption.] All the right hon. Gentleman has to do is say "No".
If the Secretary of State for Scotland is to be believed, the Metropolitan police suddenly took it into their heads that it would be an interesting way to pass time if they raided the BBC offices in Glasgow. He said that
the decision to apply for a search warrant was taken at the request of the Metropolitan police.
He challenged anyone to question the divine right of autonomy of the special branch.
However, the matter is not quite that simple. The Secretary of State, being as unscrupulous and shifty as he thought it possible to get away with—and being too sensible to try to lie—gave the game away with obscure phraseology about petitions being presented to the sheriff of Glasgow by the procurator fiscal
with the authority my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate."—[Official Report, 2 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 695.]

Who exactly is the Lord Advocate? His name is Lord Cameron of Lochbroom, and he has many distinguished predecessors, most notably the father-in-law of my hon. Friend the Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell). The most relevant aspect of the office of Lord Advocate, in the context of this controversy, is what is said about him in a certain highly relevant Act of Parliament, section 12 of which states:
The expression 'Attorney-General' means the Attorney or Solicitor-General for England; and as respects Scotland, means the Lord Advocate.
Section 8 provides:
A prosecution for an offence under this Act shall not be instituted except by or with the consent of the Attorney-General:
No prizes—it is from the Official Secrets Act 1911.

Mr. Jerry Hayes: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: What was the Secretary of State for Scotland seeking to conceal from this House yesterday? It was that when the special branch raided the BBC in Glasgow with warrants citing, first, section 9 and then section 2 of the Official Secrets Act they did so not on their own initiative but in accordance with a statute that places the right to institute prosecutions under the Official Secrets Act solely with the Attorney-General.
I wish to quote a written answer, part of which the Prime Minister quoted at Question Time today. Anyone who has the patience to read the fine print could have linked the Attorney-General with the raid by studying that written answer given last Thursday, not surprisingly, to my hon. Friend the Member for Workington. I shall read that quote in its entirety and not partially, as the Prime Minister did today:

The Attorney-General: On Friday 23 January 1987 the Director of Public Prosecutions, at the request of the Attorney-General, asked the Metropolitan police to investigate possible breaches of the Official Secrets Act 1911 arising out of the publication in the New Statesman magazine of a report entitled 'The Parliamentary bypass operation'. It is the policy of both the Attorney-General and the Director of Public Prosecutions not to give details of advice provided to police about the conduct of current investigations."—[Official Report, 29 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 330.]
It was the Attorney-General who launched this whole train of events—the answer makes that clear. Unless we get a specific denial today, we have the right to take it that it was either the Attorney-General—

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Kaufman: It is the Attorney-General's answer that I am quoting. If hon. Members do not like it, they should take it up with the Attorney-General.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Gentleman is not giving way.

Mr. Kaufman: Unless we get a specific denial today, we have the right to take it that it was either the Attorney-General or the Director of Public Prosecutions, working to the Attorney-General's instructions, who gave the police their orders to raid not only the New Statesman but also the BBC. The Attorney-General has the opportunity to tell the House; I will gladly give way if he wishes to do so. Did the Attorney-General take, initiate, authorise or consent to that action?
Of course that action was taken not on the instructions of a ministerial meeting that the Attorney-General had


attended—no Attorney-General would do that— but after having consulted Ministers and taken cognisance of their views. We need an answer. [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer now."] I have asked the question and the House must draw its conclusions from the Attorney-General's reaction. [Interruption] If we have an answer from the Attorney-General at some stage, we shall study it in the context of the clear statement made by the Prime Minister in this House on 22 January when she said, with reference to the action taken on 22 January:
The Government took out and obtained an interim injunction
She went on to repeat:
the Government took that action."—[Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1021.]

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Michael Heseltine: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. Both the right hon. Member and the hon. Member know that if the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) does not wish to give way they must not persist.

Mr. Kaufman: I shall give way to the right hon. Member for Henley (Mr. Heseltine).

Mr. Heseltine: In an earlier reply to my hon. Friend the Member for Bury St. Edmunds (Sir E. Griffiths) the right hon. Gentleman said that it was quite clear that orders had been given, yet it is clear that the right hon. Gentleman has no evidence of that whatsoever.

Mr. Kaufman: Is the right hon. Member for Henley saying that a group of special branch officers go to Heathrow, catch an aeroplane and go to the BBC headquarters in Glasgow at random, with absolutely nobody telling them to do so? [Interruption.] That is an interesting example of the kind of random gathering that will be made illegal under the Public Order Act 1986.
From the very beginning this whole train of events has borne the personal hallmark of the Prime Minister.

Hon. Members: Who gave the order?

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is a very serious debate and it is not helped by shouts of hon. Members on both sides from sedentary positions.

Mr. Kaufman: This debate is being broadcast and the public will hear how I am being shouted down. I am prepared to wait until hon. Members are silent.
The hallmark of the Prime Minister is bungling inefficiency coupled with arrogant authoritarianism. Everyone should have a concern for national security and, in so far as national security is involved in this episode, the Government have shown themselves to be slipshod and negligent.
Action to deal with the leak over the Zircon project has been delayed for months while the number of unauthorised people with access to that material has increased. The secret itself has become more and more widely known long before it was published in the New Statesman. Of course, the Prime Minister's definition of national security is not confined to material that might help the Russians militarily. It expands to take in material that would politically inconvenience her Government.

Mr. Hayes: rose—

Mr. Marlow: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Is it possible for the right hon. Gentleman to produce evidence for his allegations and accusations rather than indulging in personal abuse and trivia?

Mr. Kaufman: The Prime Minister does not seem to understand that national security must be upheld not in the absence of civil liberties but to protect our civil liberties. But to undermine our civil liberties is to undermine national security. The Prime Minister will authorise any action, however extreme or destructive of our liberties, to revenge herself on those who incon venience her. That is the reason for the introduction into Britain, in Glasgow last weekend, of the 3 o'clock knock as a summons by the police.
That is the reason for the raid on the offices of our most internationally respected institution. That raid will have caused consternation among the BBC's many admirers abroad who are friends of Britain and will have caused satisfaction in Moscow. The raids on the BBC last weekend will be shown on Moscow's television screens again and again to undermine the BBC's reputation among uncommitted nations which respect and trust the BBC's broadcasts as the voice of decent democracy.
Yesterday, the Glasgow Herald—

Mr. Albert McQuarrie: A good newspaper.

Mr. Kaufman: A very good newspaper. The Glasgow Herald said in its leading article:
Having thoroughly searched the offices of a dissident magazine, the secret police then worked through the night removing documents from the headquarters of the broadcasting organisation.
It continued:
It is not of Eastern Europe that we write but of our own dear free country. The actions of the Government in the Zircon affair began by seeming merely incompetent. They now appear incomprehensible and, worse, sinister.
The Glasgow Herald continued:
what we are seeing is a political witchhunt.
It is the Prime Minister's style to use the cloak of national security for witch hunts. It is the Prime Minister's style, as in the Tisdall, Ponting and Massiter cases and now in this case, to manipulate the Official Secrets Act for political purposes. It is above all, against that arrogant and high-handed style of government that we shall be voting tonight.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hurd): There is one point on which I agree with the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). He and I exchanged gesticulations across the Table yesterday when my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland was speaking. The right hon. Gentleman misunderstood the advice that I was trying to give him. I was suggesting that he might listen to my right hon. and learned Friend. If he had taken that advice, we would have been spared some of the amazing inaccuracies to which we have just listened.
It may be for the convenience of the House if I set out the sequence of events covered by the motion but, at the outset, I wish to make it clear, as my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland did yesterday, that I totally reject the charge that there has been interference by the Government in this police investigation.
On 23 January, the Director of Public Prosecutions, at the request of my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General in his prosecuting capacity, asked the Metropolitan police to investigate any criminal offences that may have been commited by those associated with the making of the television programme in the series "The Secret Society" dealing with a proposed intelligence-gathering project and the publication in the New Statesman of an article entitled "The Parliamentary Bypass Operation". Apart from the proper involvement of the Law Officers in England and Scotland, no Minister sought to direct the course of the police investigation which followed; no Minister sought to influence the course of the police investigation; and no Minister knew of the steps that the police were proposing in the course of their investigation.
This afternoon the Leader of the Opposition said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had been the initiator of all this action. He spoke in a passion and he was wholly wrong. The right hon. Member for Gorton, who made a carefully prepared speech, used exactly the same, or a very similar formulation, when he said that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had unleashed the special branch on the offices. He produced no jot of evidence to suggest that my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had done anything of the kind. It is not sufficient in a matter of this importance to dress up generalised and
prejudiced accusations of this kind.
I shall not describe meetings between Ministers— [HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]— but, in response to the question asked by the right hon. Member for Gorton, I shall say this categorically: at no meeting of Ministers was prosecution discussed, for the simple reason that questions of prosecution are never discussed collectively between Ministers. As has been often described in the House, including by my right hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, those are matters for my right hon. and learned Friend in his prosecuting capacity. He does not consult his colleagues—indeed, he debars himself from consulting his colleagues on any matter relating to a prosecution.
There are on the Opposition Benches right hon. Gentlemen who have held the position of Prime Minister, Home Secretary or Law Officer of the Crown, either in England or in Scotland. They know how that procedure worked in their time. That is how the procedure works now and, for the reasons which I shall give, I believe that is how it should work in future. That is to say, once an investigation has been set in hand, it should be for the police and not for politicians to decide how it should be carried out within the law.
There is no argument between the two sides of the House that a grave breach of national security occurred. No one has been stronger on that point than the Leader of the Opposition. On 22 January, during Prime Minister's Questions, he agreed that the material in question was prejudicial to national security. Five days later, on 27 January, he went further and asked my right hon. Friend:
Does the Prime Minister really hope to convince the country that a chat with the BBC is a sufficient way in which to safeguard national security?"— [Official Report, 27 January 1987; Vol. 109, c. 178.]
The right hon. Gentleman clearly felt then that sterner measures should be taken, or should have been taken. But

I would ask, in view of what the right hon. Member for Gorton said today and what the Leader of the Opposition has been spilling out for 48 hours, whether the Leader of the Opposition really hopes to convince the country that when a serious breach of national ecurity has occurred there should be no action by my right hon. and learned friend the Attorney-General to set in hand a police investigation or that that investigation should be anything less than determined and thorough.
I have continuing difficulty in understanding the thrust of the Opposition's argument. Are they saying that this investigation should not take place—that is the main thrust of their criticism— or are they saying that it should have taken place earlier? They cannot have it both ways.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: The right hon. Gentleman will know that the whole thrust has been criticism of the Government for eight months of complacency and inactivity followed by two weeks of intensive bullying or attempted bullying. I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question which the Prime Minister would not answer last week: why were there all those months of complacency and inactivity and recent days of hyper-activity? Why did the Government not take action on the basis of the information to which they had access as early as July or even June last year? Why did they leave it until they tried to cover their trail with injunctions and invasions of the BBC?

Mr. Hurd: So the right hon. Gentleman is not complaining of the investigation by the police— [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] I am coming to the question but I am making an observation. The Opposition must be clear whether they are now complaining that—[HON. MEMBERS: "Answer."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. If the Home Secretary is answering the question, there is no point in intervening. Give him a chance.

Mr. Hurd: The point which the Leader of the Opposition has raised has already been fully debated in the
House— [HON. MEMBERS: "No."] As my right hon.
Friend—

Mr. Kinnock: Mr. Speaker's ruling was debated.

Mr. Hurd: The matter was fully debated in the House. As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has pointed out, action was taken to persuade the BBC not to broadcast the programme. Then, when it was possible, because of information which became available, an injunction was taken out to prevent further showing of the film. It follows from what I have said that it is not for me to comment on the timing of a prosecution or of an investigation because that is not a matter for the collective decision of the Government. Having answered the question put by the Leader of the Opposition, I return to the question that I put to him: are the Opposition saying that this investigation should not have taken place—that has been the whole thrust of their criticism until now—or are they simply saying that it should have taken place earlier?
If national security is to be protected—again, there is no real argument between hon. Members on this matter—serious breaches must be investigated to see whether there is a case to bring before the courts. A failure, after a serious breach, to investigate how that breach occurred


and who might have been responsible should rightly be condemned as a breach of elementary duty. At one amazing stage in his speech this afternoon, the Leader of the Opposition asked why there have not been arrests and charges. The answer is that the investigation is under way. Hon. Members should think about what the right hon. Gentleman would have said if there were arrests and charges before the investigation had been completed. He is standing the principles of justice on their head.

Mr. Robin Cook: If it is the Home Secretary's case that the weekend raid was to collect evidence in the course of an investigation into a criminal offence, will he explain why it then was necessary for the police to remove both copies of the master tape for every programme? Surely the removal of identical copies of the same tape shows that this has nothing to do with the collection of evidence but everything to do with a wish to obstruct and intimidate the BBC.

Mr. Hurd: I shall refer to that point as I detail the sequence of events.
Following the request from the Director of Public Prosecutions to the Metropolitan police, search warrants were obtained by the police, through approaches to the Common Serjeant—he is equivalent to a circuit judge—in respect of four London premises. These warrants were secured under the special provisions in the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 for obtaining search warrants in respect of journalistic material. One of these premises was, of course, the offices of the New Statesman magazine. Documents and other material were removed from all the four addresses and are still to be examined by the police. During the course of the searches, Mr. Campbell indicated to the police that most of the work for the film had been conducted while he had been staying in Scotland and that the research material was stored at the BBC headquarters in Glasgow.
I am informed that, on 26 January, Mr. Alan Protheroe, the BBC assistant director-general, was telephoned at BBC headquarters in London and asked whether he would be prepared to hand over the original film to help the police investigation. He stated that he was not prepared to do so because of the—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] Mr. Protheroe was within his rights. He said that he was not prepared to do so because of the possibility of breach of copyright, and he advised that if the police wanted the material they should attempt to obtain it through due legal process.
That is why the investigation then shifted to Scotland, as described by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State yesterday. He told the House of the visit of the officers of Strathclyde police, with members of the Metropolitan police special branch, to the BBC premises on 31 January, following the grant of a warrant by the sheriff in Glasgow. He described the legal exchanges that occurred on 31 January, as a result of which a revised warrant was obtained to search the premises of the BBC after an officer of the Metropolitan police had taken an oath before the sheriff. The warrant was then executed and material was removed from the premises of the BBC.
The material is now being examined to establish whether an offence may have been committed in Scotland and a report will be made to the procurator fiscal. At the same time, the Metropolitan police are examining the material in the context of their investigation into the

breach of national security. I understand that the police intend to return any material that can be eliminated from their inquiries as soon as they can. They will retain only material that they consider provides possible evidence of an offence under the Official Secrets Act.

Mr. Kinnock: The Home Secretary, in part, has answered the question I wanted to raise. He has gained some reputation, at least in recent years, of being something of a libertarian. As it is the case that the police took themselves to Scotland because of the information provided by Mr. Campbell that research material would be available in Scotland, what is the Home Secretary's view of the decision to take away all copies of film, together with research material, rather than at least leaving the BBC with one copy of each film? Why does he believe—no one has even suggested that the other five films had anything to do with national security—that there was any justification for taking them away?

Mr. Hurd: I was about to refer to that point because the hon. Member for Livingston (Mr. Cook) raised it, and I promised to refer to it. I understand that the material on which the programmes were based is so interwoven that it was not possible—

Mr. Kinnock: rose—

Mr. Hurd: The right hon. Gentleman misses the point because he continues to believe that the purpose of this operation is to do with the showing of the films. That is not so. This is a criminal investigation designed to establish whether a breach of security took place, how it took place, who was involved and whether there is a case for prosecution. Therefore, we are dealing not just with the films but with the whole of the material that may be relevant to such an investigation. I understand that the material on which the programmes were based is so interwoven that it was not possible immediately to disentangle one kind of material from another. Therefore, as I said, the material is being sorted out as quickly as possible so that the police can return any material that is eliminated from their inquiries as soon as possible

Mr. Tony Benn: As the Home Secretary has responsibility for the Metropolitan police and Government relations with the BBC, will he tell the House on exactly what date this operation was reported to him and what response he gave to it?

Mr. Hurd: It was reported to me after it had taken place, for the reason that I have described. I shall refer to the right hon. Gentleman and his extraordinary accusations against me yesterday. What I have stated until now is the sequence of events to date as I understand it.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: In respect of the BBC's refusal to make available to the police material that was relevant to the prima facie breach of national security, will my right hon. Friend confirm that it is the duty of every citizen, including the BBC, to assist the police with their inquiries and that, if the BBC had been willing to assist, the matter of the warrants would not have become so critical?

Mr. Hurd: I prefer not to enter into the detail of those matters because they may come before the courts in one way or another, although my hon. Friend is at liberty to develop that argument if he wishes to do so.
I do not in the least underestimate the strength of concern of many hon. Members about both the breach of


security and the events that followed. It seems to me that the attack on the Government has shifted ground remarkably in the last day or so. Originally, the argument was that we had improperly intervened and directed a major attack by the police upon Mr. Campbell and upon the BBC to frighten them or to inflict some sort of revenge. There were rather strong traces of that in the speech of the Leader of the Opposition today. The right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) made that the main point of his intervention yesterday. It was also implied by the intervention of the leader of the Liberal party and others.
What is now emerging, it seems to me, is a different and, indeed, contradictory line of criticism. Now it is clear that Ministers did not intervene in the conduct of the police investigation—[Interruption.] Nothing has been said or written that produces one jot of evidence to the contrary. The implication now is that we should have intervened and taken action to prevent the investigation taking the course that it did. This implication lies behind what the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) have been saying. Our fault, it is now said, lies not in intervention but in failure to intervene to prevent the course of action that was taken.
For example, the right hon. Member for Hillhead yesterday asked which Minister should take responsibility for the way in which the police conducted the investigation. Obviously, Ministers can take responsibility only when they have power to intervene and influence events. The right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well that the Home Secretary has no power to intervene in the course of an investigation by the police. The Home Affairs Select Committee—

Mr. Bruce Milian: rose—

Mr. Hurd: I shall finish this point and then give way.
The Home Affairs Select Committee, in its report of April 1985, affirmed that the special branches are not creatures of Ministers or of the security service but are accountable to their chief constables.

Mr. Milian: The warrant that was used last weekend covered all six films, not just one film. It was specifically authorised by the Lord Advocate who is a Government Minister.

Mr. Hurd: That is why I referred to the perfectly proper part that was played by the Law Officers in England and Scotland, upon which my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland touched yesterday. Both yesterday and again today the right hon. Member for Gorton made much of the fact that the Home Secretary is the police authority for the Metropolis. Of course that is true, but is the right hon. Gentleman saying that police authorities up and down the country should have the right to intervene and to direct the police investigations? [Interruption.] Yes, that is exactly what he is saying. The whole thrust of the Labour party's policy towards the police is that their operations should increasingly be handed over to politicians, whether at local or central level.
In the exchanges last week on Wapping it became clear that the Labour party would hand over decisions about the policing of Wapping to the borough leaders of

London. Now it emerges that the Labour party would also open to political direction the way in which the police investigate alleged offences.

Mr. D. N. Campbell-Savours: That is not true.

Mr. Hurd: We can argue that case in the country when the time comes. I simply say to those hon. Members in all parts of the House who are genuinely concerned about the liberties of the individual that I believe that the courts of law provide much safer protection against any abuse of power than some system of arbitrary political interference with the investigative role of the police.
The chairman of the BBC wrote to me yesterday. In his letter he said that the BBC would take whatever legal action might be appropriate. That is indeed the BBC's right, as it is the right of any citizen in this country. It is for the courts to decide whether suggestions that on any occasion the police exceeded their powers are valid; it is for the prosecuting authorities to decide whether a case should come to court; and it is for the court to decide on a verdict once a case has been brought. There is no part for politicians in these three processes.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: Does my right hon. Friend appreciate that it was in the High Court that the warrant and its terms were confirmed? Does he accept that in Scotland, for a Law Officer to be asked to prosecute by a Minister would be totally alien to our system and that what would be even worse would be if he were asked not to prosecute by a Minister and to call off the police, which is what the Opposition suggest?

Mr. Hurd: I am grateful to my hon. and learned Friend. He confirms my understanding that the system that applies in Scotland is exactly the same as the system that applies in England and Wales, which I have been describing over and over again. That is the prosecuting role of the Law Officers of the Crown and that is divorced from collective decision by the Government.
No one is wholly content in 1987 with the Official Secrets Act. That is why we tried to reform it at the beginning of our term of office. I do not doubt that this matter will return to the agenda when there is some chance of the necessary degree of support for a change. However, there is no doubt in my mind that, whatever the chosen instrument, two essential principles must continue to be upheld. First, it is essential— this is a point that the Opposition have continually let slip—that breaches of national security should be thoroughly investigated and, if offences have occurred, that those responsible should be brought to justice. Secondly, it should be clear that the liberties of the citizen are much better secured by recourse to the independent courts than by a system through which politicians guide, nudge or direct the police in the course of their investigations.

Dr. David Owen: Today the House is discussing the state of the law in this land. The law is made here, and it is as parliamentarians that we should be discussing some of the legal aspects of this case.
At the start it should be stated clearly that the Official Secrets Act is grossly defective and that section 2 ought to be repealed. Once again, the evidence for its repeal comes from our experience of its application. It is also abundantly clear as a result of this case that the protection


of the individual citizen under the law of this country is inadequate. On Friday we shall have a rare opportunity to seek to remedy the inadequacies of the protection afforded to the individual citizen. The hon. and learned Member for Fylde (Sir E. Gardner) will introduce a private Member's Bill to incorporate into the law of this land the European convention on human rights. Article 10 of the convention would provide some safeguard in terms of a basic right against such provisions as have operated in the past few days.
Apart from the fact that this case demonstrates the need to repeal section 2 of the Official Secrets Act and the need for a freedom of information Act and a Bill of Rights, it underlines, on a number of counts, the case that has constantly been made for some form of parliamentary mechanism to investigate matters of national security.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Dr. Owen: No, the hon. Gentleman can intervene later. I am just developing my argument.
A fundamental question relates to the issue of warrants and the breadth and scope of such warrants. It has always been understood that a warrant is a basic intrusion on civil rights. It has to be done, but the terms of the warrant have always been considered to be of extreme importance and they have been zealously guarded. [HoN. MEMBERS: "What are they?"] I shall deal with that point. One may refer to the generalised warrants against which John Wilkes argued, to the American constitution and how the colonists, because of their experience of generalised warrants, insisted upon an amendment to the constitution to safeguard the rights of the citizen against search and seizure. We thus have the power to challenge the scope of a warrant.
In the case of the New Statesman a warrant was issued. I have it here and it is quite specific. It refers to
any material, whether in written, electronic or other form, which relates to the subject matter of an article in the issue of The New Statesman magazine dated 23 January 1987 entitled 'The parliamentary bypass operation' and that the issue of a warrant is appropriate by reason that service of notice".
The warrant is narrowly confined. It may be that the House and the country were not zealous enough about the range and depth of the investigation of the New Statesman offices, but the fact is that it was not a matter of major controversy, whereas the BBC Scotland case has been a matter of major controversy. I should like to examine why, and the differences between the two cases.
In the case of the New Statesman, although the special branch spent four days there and carried out an investigation in great depth, including even the subscription department, it has been openly accepted by those involved in the investigation that the police were courteous at every stage and seemed to wish to confine the articles that they took away specifically and deliberately to the terms of the warrant. I understand that there has been little criticism of the police by either the editor or the solicitor of the New Statesman. The amount of material that was taken away was extremely limited—about 27 items from the offices of the New Statesman and 11 items from Mr. Campbell's house. That was sufficient in total to fill only a small suitcase, whereas the material taken from the Scottish offices of the BBC filled three vans.
It is also true that, before criminal action was taken against the New Statesman, civil action was taken to persuade the magazine not to publish again any of that material.
Neither the Government nor the Home Secretary denied that the Government were deeply involved in that whole process, just as they had been involved in persuading the BBC not to show the Zircon film. They were then acting in their capacity as guardians of national security, as they are perfectly entitled to do.

Mr. John Powley: They had a duty.

Dr. Owen: Indeed they had a duty to do so.
I have not seen the Zircon film, although others have. I presume that the Leader of the Opposition has seen it, or has discussed it with the Foreign Secretary and come to the conclusion that it was not unreasonable for the Government to persuade the BBC not to show the film. As a consequence, first under your advice, Mr. Speaker, the House agreed not to see the film, although it is rather odd that about 900 people in Cardiff have already seen it, but the Government seem to have taken no action—

Mr. Marlow: rose—

Dr. Owen: I shall not give way.
Questions arise about the investigation and the warrant that was issued on the BBC. Detective Superintendent Cole said on Sunday 25 January, in front of the editor of the New Statesman, and the magazine's solicitors, that he had been asked to conduct this investigation. I imagine that he was asked by the Director of Public Prosecutions. I gather that the Attorney-General does not deny that he knew that that was taking place and that he acted in his role as adviser on prosecutions. I confirm the procedure which the Home Secretary stated, that successive Attorney-Generals have taken the view that that is a decision for themselves to take but that on occasions they have felt it right to consult Ministers, but not collectively, to take advice but to preserve that decision to themselves.

The Attorney-General (Sir Michael Havers): To consult only on matters of public policy, if they are relevant.

Dr. Owen: I have been consulted by a former Attorney-General who was always scrupulous to maintain that provision. The Attorney-General would be the first to admit that it is dangerous to make the distinction between civil and criminal as separate and distinct as has the Prime Minister. The fact is that Ministers collectively decide whether the issue raises questions of national interest and security. They decide collectively whether to persuade or to take out an injunction to prevent publication. During that process the Attorney-General is involved as an adviser to the Government. His advice is crucial because the Government know that if they decide to take out an injunction, it will very likely, although not definitely, lead to a prosecution.
That was why many orbs were amazed to discover that the Prime Minister had not had the Attorney-General with her when the decision had been taken not to take out an injunction to prevent publication of Chapman Pincher's book on MI5. That was why Sir Robert Armstrong let it be thought in the courts for 11 days that the Attorney-General had been present. Sir Robert Armstrong knew—we all knew—that it would be inconceivable not to involve the Attorney-General in the civil process as an adviser because we know that he would be involved in any


prosecution. Although there is quite properly a separation between the two roles of the Attorney-General, they run together as strands and cannot be totally separated.
What else happened in the New Statesman offices during that four-day period? I have already paid tribute to the courtesy with which the police officers conducted themselves in their wide-ranging activities.
However, what is important about their investigation is that Inspector Williams, who conducted the raid on the New Statesman and the Scottish offices of the BBC, saw the transcripts of the unedited interviews for the five programmes in "The Secret Society" series in the New Statesman offices. He also saw the same evidence in the filing cabinets in the New Statesman offices and on Mr. Campbell's computer screen. At one stage, he took such an interest in the programme about the secrecy that relates to ministerial Cabinet committees, apparently established by both Labour and Conservative Governments to mastermind election planning, that he said that he would like to think about their contents. He went away to telephone Detective Superintendent Cole, came back and asked to look at the transcripts on the computer screen. He considered them and, after a short time, said that he had seen enough and that he did not wish to see more. He took with him a synopsis of all six programmes which clearly showed the contents of the five programmes, other than the Zircon programme, the contents of which were already known to the authorities.
I think that he was right not to take those programmes away. In my judgment, under the terms of the warrant—I am not a lawyer—he would not have been justified in going wider. Nobody complained about the fact that he looked at them, but did not do anything about them. The big question then arises as to what happened between the end of the investigation into the New Statesman and the decision on 31 January to take out that very wide warrant to search the Scottish offices of the BBC.
As we know, that first warrant was challenged by the BBC, which rightly said that it was oppressive. It was withdrawn and a second warrant was issued, incidentally to the wrong address. We then witnessed the spectacle of the police going out with material, coming back with the material, and going out with the material again. As I understand it, the BBC did not challenge the third warrant. I wish that it had done so, but that is a matter for its judgment. [HoN. MEMBERS: "Why?"] Because it is extremely important that at every stage warrants are narrowed down to that which is appropriate, and only to that which is appropriate.

Mr. Fairbairn: The right hon. Gentleman has said that the first warrant was oppressive. The difference between the warrants was that the petition ran on the basis that an offence had been committed under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911 and that the warrant was granted merely in the terms that an offence had been committed under the Official Secrets Act. That is hardly oppressive and was immediately corrected and conceded by the Crown.

Dr. Owen: It was challenged on the ground that it was oppressive. I did not say that the court or the sheriff held that it was oppressive. It was thought by the BBC to be oppressive and was challenged on those grounds. The court is right until proved otherwise. We all live under the laws of the courts.
The court redrafted the second warrant which went through, although it was sent to the wrong address. However, the third warrant did go through.
I do not believe that the House should abandon its right to question the width and the scope of the investigation, but we have the right to ask why all that material relating to the five other programmes was taken. We have that right, but we do not have the power to stop those actions because, as the Home Secretary rightly pointed, the only body with that power is the court. Those with the major right to question the actions at the moment are the members of the BBC's board of governors.
One of the most encouraging things that has happened in this episode is that the new chairman of the BBC's board of governors has shown his robustness and has made it quite clear that the BBC is considering taking legal action.

Mr. Dennis Skinner: He will regret that.

Dr. Owen: I do not share the view of the Labour party about the appointment of Mr. Duke Hussey. I do not think that he will prove to be the Government's poodle. I never thought that a man of his outstanding courage and integrity would be rolled over, even by this Prime Minister. Justification of that has already been demonstrated. The Labour party's shadow Home Secretary may live to regret his determination to remove Mr. Hussey from office, something the right hon. Gentleman uttered within hours of Mr. Hussey's appointment.
It is now up to the BBC board of governors to take that action. I hope that it does so and I believe that if the BBC was to make an immediate application to the High Court for the return of the goods it would have at least a sporting chance of getting them returned. I hope that the BBC will do so, but I do not know whether the courts would return the goods. It is fundamentally important that the BBC should probe and test the law. If, nevertheless, the law upholds these actions, I hope that the House will reconsider the law and question whether it should be so wide.
Why do the police want the material from those five programmes? We do not know.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: I know.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman, who openly represents police interests in the House, says that he knows. Perhaps he will tell us later as I shall not ask him to interrupt my speech to let us know now.

Mr. Peter Lilley: rose—

Dr. Owen: I shall not give way. The hon. Gentleman will make his speech in his own time.
We are entitled to surmise because these programmes do not involve national security. One programme includes the Association of Chief Police Officers. Many hon. Members defended that association during the miners' strike as a safeguard which prevented us from having a national police service. Many of us felt that that was the right way of achieving an integrated, co-ordinated response from our different police forces. I cannot see anything wrong with having more information about the organisation. Perhaps some allegations were made in the film which the association may not like. But it is an open body and meets twice a year. It holds its annual general meeting in Preston and meets again in the summer. It invites local authority representatives to attend. There cannot be anything unduly wrong with that. We know that


the Air Force co-operated on the programme on Nimrod and that the Home Office co-operated on the programme on the Association of Chief Police Officers.
On the Zircon programme, two former highly senior civil servants were involved. Sir Ronald Mason, the former chief scientist at the Ministry of Defence, was interviewed in July. Incidentally, that makes it a little odd that the Government heard about the programme only in October. Judging from how people have described the look of surprise on Sir Ronald Mason's face when he was asked about the Zircon programme, it is hard to believe that, he did not immediately tell the Ministry of Defence about the investigation. Sir Frank Cooper, former permanent under-secretary of state, no doubt well briefed by the Ministry of Defence in advance, was also certain to brief the Ministry after his interview, so the Government were given ample warning.
Yet we are asked to believe that in our society there should be a warrant so wide that the police can mount a vast fishing expedition to remove vanloads of materials because, according to the Home Secretary, the materials were so interwoven that it was difficult to disentangle them. Disentanglement should not have to take place after the removal of material. On that argument, we should allow a warrant to be issued for the police to fish through all our offices.

Mr. Tony Baldry: It is a matter for the courts.

Dr. Owen: No. The court granted a warrant and the police interpreted it. I have made it clear that I believe that the police interpreted the warrant fairly in relation to the New Statesman offices, but I do not believe that they interpreted it fairly and openly in relation to the BBC. I shall not allow hon. Members never to let me criticise the police. Many police officers do not want reasonable objective criticism of the police to be silenced. That is particularly true in relation to the Metropolitan police. For perfectly proper reasons to do with the present local government in London, the Home Secretary retains responsibility for the police. If we had a different system of local government with properly balanced proposals and fair representation, that could be changed, but there are reasons why the Home Secretary has responsibility for the Metropolitan police. That puts a responsibility on this House to question how the Metropolitan police conduct themselves. Even if they are conducting themselves in Scotland and even if action may have to be taken against the chief constable for Strathclyde—I hope that that is the right term because I have had difficulty with Scottish legal terms— it must be clear to both the Home Secretary and the Secretary of State for Scotland that there is legitimate anxiety about the range and extent of the fishing expedition in the BBC's Scottish offices.

Mr. Michael Mates: rose—

Dr. Owen: We are perfectly prepared to challenge and to argue against such action, and to use the House of Commons as a forum for that and for saying that the existing law of the land does not protect citizens. Indeed, I would go further.

Mr. Lilley: rose—

Dr. Owen: If the police cannot show that the extensive search of the BBC's offices was justified, we should reconsider the law on the issuing of warrants.

Mr. Mates: Many hon. Members will agree with many of the right hon. Gentleman's remarks and with his analysis of how far the police or anyone else should be allowed to interfere with the liberty of citizens. However, there is one point that he has not yet covered and I hope that he will deal with it. It is the seriousness of the breach of security. Will he concede that if the breach of security was sufficiently serious the police and the courts were justified in granting wide powers to find the source of that breach? What is important is not the journalism in making and editing the films, but finding the person at the heart of our security who is in a position of trust but who has betrayed that trust.

Dr. Owen: The hon. Gentleman asks me to agree to those wide powers. The whole purport of what I have been saying revolves around that. If we use a warrant to force down the door of a private citizen's house and search every article in it, we must be careful to narrow the terms of the warrant. Civil liberties require warrants to be as specific as possible, so I would not follow the hon. Gentleman in asking for wide powers. If the police wish to search another person's house, they should provide the court with the necessary evidence.
As I understand it, in Scotland the police were operating under the terms of the warrant which was issued in relation to the New Statesman offices. [Interruption.] I should be interested to know exactly how different the terms were.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: The warrant that was sought in England for London arose under the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984 which the right hon. Gentleman clearly has not studied. The warrants sought in Scotland arose, sadly, under the Official Secrets Act because the powers of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act are not available north of the border.

Dr. Owen: I am well aware of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984. I still believe that the main onus of the investigation was on the New Statesman offices. If the warrant went wider than that, it should have been made clear that it was deliberately drawn wider. That makes an even stronger case for the BBC to take action over the third warrant.
Finally, serious questions are raised about the functioning of our democracy and of the police under the rule of law. It would be a major mistake for us to allow the debate to be diverted into a discussion about whether the Home Secretary or the Secretary of State for Scotland knew of these proposals. Throughout the country there is considerable anxiety about the breadth and scope of the police action in the Scottish offices of the BBC. That should be challenged in the courts and this House should lead the challenge.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The House knows that this is a timed debate. No fewer than 18 right hon. and hon. Members have shown an interest in participating. May I ask for brief speeches, please, so that as many hon. Members as possible may be called?

Sir John Biggs-Davison: I supported the application for this debate because the House should


deliberate on these matters. Obviously, the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) should be able to criticise the police or anybody else.
It is difficult to find the right balance between freedom of information and the needs of secrecy. Secrecy should not be misused or overdone. As a lieutenant of marines during the war I remember receiving a signal which began:
Most secret. Please inform all ranks under your command.
The right hon. Member for South Down (Mr. Powell) was right when in the House he described secrecy as the art of government. We have not been practising the art very well lately, and various remedies are prescribed. An antiquarian might seek to learn something from the Committee of Imperial Defence which Mr. Balfour inaugurated at the beginning of this century. I myself have been attracted by the idea of the entrustment to certain Privy Councillors, including former Prime Ministers holding confidence throughout the House, of information which cannot be imparted for obvious reasons to an assembly of 650 Members.
I do not agree with those Liberals and Social Democrats and others who want a systematic Committee of Privy Councillors. The right hon. Member for Devonport spoke of a mechanism. My right hon. Friend the Member for Brighton, Pavilion, (Mr. Amery) is probably correct—as he has experience in these matters—when he said on 3 December:
Political control should be strengthened only informally."—[Official Report, 3 December 1986; Vol. 106, c. 956.]
Security should not become the subject of regular questioning in Parliament. It is generally agreed that the Official Secrets Act 1911 is, to put it mildly, unsatisfactory. My right hon. Friend the Home Secretary admitted that in his speech today. It may well fall to the next Conservative Government to amend or replace the Official Secrets Act. I say the "next" Conservative Government partly because the nation will repudiate Opposition Members who condone or even use for partisan purposes the leaking of official secrets inside or outside the Palace of Westminster. I do not believe that the electorate will warm to or even take seriously a shadow Home Secretary who sneers at the police as the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) did in his speech today.
There are fallen standards in politics, in the public service and the mass media which must be raised once more. The reputation of the BBC stood so high in Europe and the world at the time of our greatest peril. At best, it was an astonishing lapse of judgment to choose Mr. Duncan Campbell for "The Secret Society" series. Despite his services to the national executive committee of the Labour party, the Leader of the Opposition did well to say on 22 January:
the Government properly took out an injunction against Mr. Campbell."—[Official Report, 22 January 1987; Vol. 108, c. 1020.]
The right hon. Member for Gorton referred to secret police. It is a strange kind of secret police that works in the glare of television. I must confess that when I heard of the operation at the BBC offices in Scotland I had my misgivings and I believe that my hon. Friends also had misgivings.
There was a picture in some people's minds of plainclothes PC Plods heavy-handed and trampling heavy-footed through the studios of Radio Scotland. The right hon. Member for Devonport referred to "fishing" and the right hon. Member for Gorton spoke of "spiteful fishing". Some light, however, was thrown on the matter by my hon. Friend the Member for Strathkelvin and Bearsden (Mr. Hirst) in his question to my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister today. We are now aware that the Metropolitan police requested the co-operation of the BBC. However, that co-operation was not forthcoming. We may say that perhaps the BBC was justified in withholding co-operation. The BBC sought legal advice. Perhaps my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland will confirm that when he replies.
I have been told that the BBC in Scotland sought legal advice from its legal adviser and he properly recommended full co-operation, but the BBC decided not to co-operate. Supposing that co-operation had been given. If it had been forthcoming, as it should have been, the investigation could surely have been conducted decently, discreetly and without any undue inconvenience to the BBC. However, there would have been no appearance of "fishing" and "spiteful fishing" to excite that cacophonous indignation with which the factions on the Opposition Benches cover their unbridgeable divisions.

Mr. Norman Buchan: I do not like the line that has been developed by the hon. Member for Epping Forest (Sir J. Biggs-Davison) in one respect. This has also arisen on the Government Front Bench, from the Prime Minister and others. There is a suggestion that a reasonably competent, investigative journalist who tends to produce things that the establishment does not like, which certain other newspapers may be afraid to touch— not because the matters infringe national security, but because they might embarrass the Prime Minister or the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster—should not be employed.
I believe that someone who can stimulate us in this way is precisely the kind of person who should be employed. It is then up to the judgment of the producers to consider how the information should be used. The immediate blacklisting of Duncan Campbell that is taking place must be deplored.
It is also worth stressing that this country is becoming obsessed with questions of secrecy. The Government are protecting their political position by their line on the question of secrecy. They call in aid national security which is sometimes defined as "national interest". We must remember that the last judge who defined "national interest" said that that was the
policies of the Government of the day.
If Dr. Johnson was alive today he would believe that the calling in of "national interest" was the
last refuge of the scroundrel
as we have seen from the Government Front Bench over the past few weeks.
We are moving into a dangerous situation. The Government are blurring the lines between the legal duties of the state and the political sense and authority of the Government. When that is blurred we are in difficulty. That is why we had all hoped that the Attorney-General—that sphinx-like person on the Government Front Bench— might have spoken. The Attorney-General


intervened on the Australian case in the "Real Lives" programme and his intervention was necessary to establish the truth. It required him at least to establish the truth. That rush of blood to the head obviously rather worried him and he has stayed silent ever since except for a minor perambulation across the Front Bench towards the Dispatch Box, which was quickly interrupted this afternoon.
We are facing a dangerous position because we are beginning to prosecute people for matters which in America people would be compelled to disclose. We are trying to prevent things from being said which should be made known. Those of us who have read the New Statesman article know that it contains nothing that is secret. No secondary KGB man would have bought a lunch for the secrets contained in that article. The whole performance is nonsense and the Government know that. However, the Government are prosecuting on such aspects. In America, Duncan Campbell would have been hauled before the Congressional Committee as a hero because he told the truth about what is happening behind the Government Front Bench.
The matter is also serious because the Government are blurring the lines between what is legally proper and what which is politically suitable for them. Matters are being exaggerated. We watch what is happening under the name of the rolling back of the state—the rolling back of the welfare state and the rolling in of the authoritarian state—and the ease with which any response to disturbance goes over the top as it did at Orgreave with the miners, and as happened at Wapping two weeks ago with the calling in of the Metropolitan police cavalry charge, which television reports claimed happened without warning. I recall that the Home Secretary is in charge of the Metropolitan police and therefore in charge of that cavalry charge and he is at the same time entrusted with the freedom of speech in broadcasting and the press. That is a dangerous combination of responsibilities which cannot be tolerated.
Of course, this is not a Fascist state. That is not the problem. The opposite is the case, and the problems lie in the incidents which are happening within the structure of the democratic state. For example, there are the attacks by the Prime Minister when she uses the word "significantly". She said "significantly" the article comes from a Left-wing journalist. That in the form of innuendo is the nearest approach to a lie that I have ever heard from a Prime Minister.
We have seen a long and accelerating diminution of civil liberties in this country over the past seven or eight years in every possible way. It has been spearheaded by the sneering, snide remarks and innuendoes of the Prime Minister herself. We cannot avoid the fact that we have a third-rate democrat in the shape of the Prime Minister with a second-rate mind and a first-rate ruthlessness. That is a frightening combination to be facing. We see her attacks on the so-called social security scroungers. We see her attacks on the young unemployed and the way in which she is using the state apparatus to juggle the unemployment figures. We see her over-the-top response in the use of her power and authority.

Mr. Ivan Lawrence: Us, over the top?

Mr. Buchan: Yes, the sort of response we saw at Wapping. We now see it in a more dangerous way. It is

creeping into the last basic right that we have, freedom of speech. The interference in that freedom is the most frightening of all.
Let us compare what happened two years ago on "Real Lives" with what happened two or three weeks ago. On "Real Lives" the broadcasters still had sufficient confidence in their position and, therefore, courage to resist the imposition of a Government diktat. It forced an open intervention by the Home Secretary. Not this time. After two years of continual attacks and pressure from the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster and the snide remarks of the Prime Minister, this time the BBC capitulated even before it was necessary. That is the most dangerous of all situations in a democracy. It is not just the over-application of censorship or the open intervention of the Home Secretary, but the creation of a mood in which self-censorship is taking place.

Sir Kenneth Lewis: rose—

Mr. Buchan: Time is short and I wish to deal with serious matters.
Self-censorship is extremely dangerous as the timidity is such that the power of the state is not even tested but there is capitulation before it is necessary. We will never know when self-censorship is applied by the press or broadcasting and we will be prevented from knowing the issue that has given rise to it. The truth never gets out in that way. That is what the Government are afraid of and that is what we are talking about. As the edges are being blurred between the legal apparatus and the state, political truth is the first casualty.
The Government talk about secrecy in the New Statesman article. If there were any moles, they are Sir Frank Cooper, the previous permanent secretary, and British Aerospace which first published this. There was nothing unknown in the article. Special branch broke down the door of Duncan's. house—I knew him when he was a young lad so I shall call him Duncan—

Mr. David Winnick: The Home Secretary just called him Campbell.

Mr. Buchan: Yes. That is true. When members of special branch broke down his door to investigate him he asked them whether they wanted to see the rest of the programmes. They said, "No. We are concerned only with one programme." Within four days the Prime Minister had altered that situation, or someone had, and the BBC offices in Scotland were turned inside out. They even looked at those aspects that had nothing to do with security. Even the specific film that was supposed to be an issue of security, in fact, had little to do with it.
We can look at the mess that was made of the warrants.

Mr. Fairbairn: rose—

Mr. Buchan: We should not look for legal advice from the hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn). He is not really very good.
The warrants were wrong because they tried to make them as wide as possible. I believe that it was because of the attitude of the Prime Minister, as a result of negotiations with the New Statesman last week, when she tried to get a statement or art attitude from the magazine that she could iterate from the Dispatch Box and because she was beaten last Tuesday by the intervention of my right hon. Friends the Members for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn) and Cardiff, South and Penarth (Mr. Callaghan),


a former Prime Minister. The revenge motive then came to the fore. The other five programmes had to be obtained to try to prove a point.
The Prime Minister, the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, and the Home Secretary today have been arguing that we are trying to seek ministerial intervention. I have never heard such chutzpah, even from the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Mr. Winnick: Translate that for Hansard.

Mr. Buchan: The Secretary of State understands what that means. It is wrong for the Prime Minister to make a bare-faced attempt to attribute that to us when it is the Government themselves who are using the law for political purposes. The truth is that freedom of expression in Britain has been decreasing. It is under attack and it should be defended. If we need anything now it is a freedom of information Act, abolition of section 2 of the damnable Official Secrets Act and above all some truth and honesty from the Conservative Front Bench. That in itself, without structure or change, would be a massive improvement.
I end with one point. It is an issue that hon. Members will not find surprising coming from me. It is an astonishing coincidence that on the weekend in which the New Statesman published an article rubbishing the idea that broadcasting in Britain should be taken from the Home Office and passed to a ministry of arts and the media, it found its own doors being broken in by the police under the control of the Home Office. What an irony that is. In the very week that I was removed from the Opposition Front Bench to the Back Benches in defence of that proposition, Wapping also occurred. Section T1, subsection 7 of the Home Office instructions for broadcasting says that the Home Secretary is responsible, among other things, for the press, especially freedom of speech and the right to reply. That responsibility belongs to the Home Secretary under whom was launched the cavalry charge at Wapping.
The steps we could take would be to introduce a freedom of information Act, abolish the Official Secrets Act and get an intelligent and sensible security charter for Britain. We should shift the responsibility of the freedom of broadcasting and the press to a Ministry that would become supportive of broadcasting and supportive of freedom of expression, and whose first and last purpose would not be just security.
I am glad of the opportunity, after three years of fairly enforced silence from the Back Benches, to make this short contribution to the most serious problem now facing us.

Mr. Nicholas Fairbairn: As this incident occurred in Scotland, perhaps I can say a word or two about it. A court in Scotland was presented with prima facie evidence that a serious crime had been committed. The crime was that of disclosing classified secrets essential to the security of Britain, and nobody should underestimate that. The court granted a warrant in order to obtain the evidence in the same way as it would if the charge had been that there was reason to believe that there were drugs or whatever in the headquarters of the BBC. The police have to take material. They cannot test it on the spot and they cannot identify it absolutely. In any

case in which a warrant is properly granted, as this one was, and restricted, as it should be, under the authority of the Lord Advocate in which it was issued, it is a matter not for Ministers but for the Law Officers who acted independently and properly and were approved by the court at two levels.
Let nobody underestimate the other issue that is raised, which is that there is a consistent attack on security and the forces of the law. I do not believe that the television series could have begun had it not been known that classified information would be available. In that situation, it is almost treasonable that such a series should be conducted. If it were suggested that action should not be taken, I cannot see how the law could be upheld.
The attack has been made that this warrant was too wide and was a fishing diligence, which is a term of civil law and not of criminal law in Scotland. I know that the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) and even the chief constable of Strathclyde do not understand the law of Scotland. I should have thought that it was a simple enough term even for somebody representing Devonport, but there we are. If the warrants had been issued against the offices of the National Front or if the charge had been one of multiple assault on a Left-wing journalist on the premises of the BBC, I do not believe that the Opposition would have complained about the process or the warrant, which would have been identical.
I believe that there is a political element, and it is this. No electoral issue has emerged which the Opposition have been able to exploit except when the Government and security are involved. Who has always tried to breach security and raise issues? The answer is Opposition Members and those who operate from their party, whether in the BBC or elsewhere. I believe that this was an intentional challenge to the law. I am glad to say that the law of Scotland was properly carried out by the Lord Advocate, in consultation with the Solicitor-General, without the influence of any Minister, and I trust that that independence will continue to guarantee the safety of this country for a long time to come.

Mr. Bruce Milian: The hon. and learned Member for Perth and Kinross (Mr. Fairbairn) has just made a ludicrous speech. His allegation that it was the deliberate intention of the BBC, in making these six programmes, to breach national security lies very oddly with the fact that the former permanent secretary of the Ministry of Defence and the former chief scientific officer of the Ministry of Defence, not to mention the RAF itself, co-operated and took part in these programmes. I want to distinguish between the one programme dealing with Zircon and the other five programmes in this series. I have not seen the Zircon programme but I have read the New Statesman article.
I find it very difficult to understand why there should be such extreme concern on the part of the Government, so we are told, about national security on the basis of the New Statesman article if that is a reflection of the actual television programme. But there may be an argument for taking that view. If my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition has been given additional information which is not available to the rest of us and takes the view that the


Government deserve the benefit of the doubt on that, for the purposes of my argument at least this evening I am willing to agree with that, although I am not convinced.
There was not a single suggestion in the debate last week that the Government had any worries about the other five programmes in this series. Indeed, the Solicitor-General went out of his way to pay tribute to the responsible attitude of the BBC over the Zircon programme. What seems to be at issue is the extreme incompetence and ineptitude of the Government in believing that the programme involved major breaches of national security but being unable in practice to prevent its public showing or to prevent the gist of the programme from appearing in the New Statesman.
When we come to the events of last weekend, we move into entirely different territory. There we are concerned with not one programme but the other five programmes in this series. We move therefore from an episode which has elements of farce into an episode which has very sinister overtones indeed. The Secretary of State for Scotland was put up to answer the private notice question yesterday. I wonder whether that was decided within the Government. Incidentally, the right hon. and learned Gentleman misled the House in pretending that the question had been deliberately put down to him. That was not so. The intention was to get an answer out of the Home Secretary, but he dodged the question. The question could have been asked of the Attorney-General, who has some direct ministerial responsibility, and it could have been passed to the Solicitor-General for Scotland, who answers questions in this House on behalf of the Lord Advocate. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He is too light weight."] But unfortunately he is in another place.
The Lord Advocate has direct ministerial responsibility, but the Secretary of State for Scotland was put up no doubt so that he could say, with perfect accuracy but nevertheless misleading the House, that he was not responsible directly for what happened over the weekend. He went further and at different stages in his answers he tried to pretend that there was no ministerial involvement or responsibility. That is simply untrue. Apart from the responsibility of the Home Secretary for security matters, and apart from the responsibility of the Attorney-General, who initiated these investigations, there is the responsibility of the Lord Advocate for Scotland, who is, apart from anything else, not just a Law Officer; he also happens to be a Minister.
There is some misunderstanding in this House about the role of the procurator fiscal. The procurator fiscal is not responsible to the police. He is quite independent from the police. He does not take instructions from the police, whether they come from the Metropolitan police or the Strathclyde police. He does not do their bidding and apply for warrants on the basis of information which they supply to him. He is not only an independent authority but he is responsible directly to the Lord Advocate through the Crown Office. Many cases— not necessarily involving official secrets— are referred by the procurator fiscal, when faced with a difficult problem, to the Crown agent, who in turn refers it to the Lord Advocate or the Solicitor-General for Scotland. Official secrets do not have to be involved.
No procurator fiscal in his right mind would take a decision on a warrant under the Official Secrets Act without passing it upwards. He referred it to the Crown office, which in turn referred it to the Lord Advocate.

What happened at the weekend was done under the direct and deliberate authority of the Lord Advocate, who is a Minister. I intervened in the Home Secretary's speech earlier this afternoon to make that point— and the Home Secretary acknowledged it. We are entitled to ask why the warrant was drawn in the terms in which it was drawn. As I understand it it was deliberately drawn in those terms to allow the police to search the BBC offices not just for material relating to the one film but for material relating to all six films.
It is not a question of the police going beyond their authority. The police, of course, may have gone beyond their authority. That is a matter for legal argument, if the warrant had been defective in allowing them to search for material from all six films. But we are entitled to ask the Government directly— and I hope that we will get an answer to this— whether this warrant was deliberately drawn in a form that would allow material relating to all six films to be removed from the BBC.
As I understand it, that was in fact done, not by the Metropolitan police or Strathclyde police— and they may have wanted it—but on the deliberate authority of the Lord Advocate, who is a Minister. The Lord Advocate has certain independent responsibilities in prosecutions and it is certainly true that at the end of the day he does not discuss these collectively with Ministers. It is a travesty of the situation to suggest that Law Officers in any Government live in a cloistered world and never talk to any of the Ministers. The Attorney-General is talking at this very minute to two Ministers on the Front Bench. [AN HON. MEMBER: "He is getting his orders from the Home Secretary."] He is acting for the Conservatives, as my hon. Friend says.
No doubt the Attorney-General and the Lord Advocate acted in this particular matter, whether or not the Lord Advocate consulted the Secretary of State for Scotland or informed him what he was going to do. It would be absolutely astonishing if he did not inform the Secretary of State for Scotland what was in mind and simply allowed the Secretary of State to read about it in the newspapers and hear about it on the television. Whether he formally consulted him, discussed it with him or simply told him, the fact is that he acts in a matter of this sort in a way in which he believes Ministers collectively would wish him to act. Obviously, from what had gone before, from the whole nature of the instigation of inquiries from the Attorney-General, and from the political sensitivity of this matter, the Lord Advocate did not make an error in approving the warrant. I assume that he saw the exact terms of the warrant before approving it. If he did not, I hope that we shall have a specific denial from the Secretary of State.
The warrant was drawn up in terms acceptable to the Government as a whole. The Government decided to intimidate the BBC, not only on the Zircon film but on the whole series and on a number of other matters as well. There has not been an iota of justification for the warrant or for its width. The Home Secretary said that the items of security in the West were interleaved through all of the six films. I have never heard a more puerile or weak excuse for a matter involving fundamental civil liberties. The whole sorry and squalid episode in Glasgow over the weekend was the direct responsibility of Ministers. They have attacked in a fundamental way civil liberties and have attempted to intimidate not just the BBC but, through it, the whole of the media.

Mr. Ray Whitney: The right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) has spent some time confirming what my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said about the role of the Lord Advocate in this case. The right hon. Gentleman concluded by saying that there was not an iota of justification for the warrant. That is a matter for the court which made the judgment. We have to await the evidence. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said, it is highly likely that there is a high degree of interweaving of the various films and productions of Mr. Duncan Campbell and his colleagues. At the end of the day, I should not be surprised if that turned out to be the case. The right hon. Member for Govan has no evidence for saying that there is no justification for the warrant, and to say that is to challenge the judgment of the court.
There is no doubt that there is deep anxiety about the implications for the press of what has happened in the past two or three weeks. We all become distinctly unhappy and uneasy when we see on our television screens policemen going into the offices of a political journal or going into the BBC and taking away material. I am sure that there can be no challenge, debate or argument from any part of the House about that. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary has said, the Opposition's argument is changing. The implication that some special status should be enjoyed by organs of the media was made by the right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman). We must challenge and examine that issue. Hon. Members who imply that and people in the media who say it because, understandably, they are defending their own interests are saying that the media are special. They seem to be suggesting bringing back the law of sanctuary that used to reside in our churches but which I believe was abolished by statute in 1623. Until the abolition of that sanctuary, a criminal escaping from the law could find protection once the church door was shut behind him. We are getting precious close to the suggestion that once the office of a newspaper or studio is shut it is sacrosanct and beyond the bounds of the law. Clearly, that cannot be so. From all the prima facie evidence available at present, there is a case for the prosecuting and investigating authorities taking the action that they did take.

Mr. Buchan: I am listening carefully to what the hon. Gentleman is saying about the authority of the state and broadcasting. He will know that the warrant was issued on a Friday and was not served until the Saturday. If it could wait for 24 hours, so much for secrecy. The Secretary of State for Scotland visited the BBC on the Friday.

Mr. Whitney: The hon. Gentleman totally misunderstands the issues at stake and falls for the tricks of his friend young Duncan, as he calls him—the man that he holds up as a hero, to use the hon. Gentleman's words, but that is not the case. Prima facie, there was evidence on which the prosecuting authorities could act. Sadly, for reasons perhaps best known to itself, the BBC declined to co-operate with the authorities who were investigating an offence under the Official Secrets Act. That is extremely disturbing. It was entirely right for the investigating authorities to proceed. Indeed, it would have been remiss of them not to proceed.
The evidence that they were right to proceed is legion. First, there was the security breach which the Government established in the case of the Zircon film. That was

recognised by the Leader of the Opposition, although many of his hon. Friends, including the right hon. Member for Govan, appear to have the greatest difficulty in accepting what their leader has accepted. There was also the clear lie—I say lie—uttered by the New Statesman and by Mr. Duncan Campbell about the state of this House and what happened about informing the Public Accounts Committee. According to the New Statesman and Mr. Duncan Campbell, this is a £500 million project and has broken the established procedures. Those procedures were established by the House following the failure of the last Labour Government to advise the House about expenditure on Chevaline.

Mr. Frank Cook: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Whitney: I shall give way when I have finished this point. Those procedures are now established. The clear testimony by the Chairman of the Public Accounts Committee, the right hon. Member for Ashton-under-Lyne (Mr. Sheldon), given in our debate last week, completely destroyed that assertion by the New Statesman and Mr. Campbell. That is the second lie. The third justification for proceeding with the action is the record of Mr. Duncan Campbell and the prosecutions brought against him during the term of office of the last Labour Government. On the basis of the current performance by the Opposition, the country must hope that that was the last ever Labour Government.
It is vital that hon. Members and the country should understand what is at stake. No one can be happy to see policemen appear in newspaper offices or in television studios. The reason for them appearing in such places is because people like Mr. Duncan Campbell—and he is not the only one— are conducting a campaign of political warfare against our organs of state. It behoves not only this House but those responsible for the media to understand that campaign. It was understood in the 1970s but, sadly, it now appears that that understanding is failing. In 1975 the editor of The Guardian said to one of Mr. Campbell's associates that he would not run a story about the American CIA. He said that they were our allies and he was not in the business of helping the KGB. That spirit must be returned to the media, and the House must take care that its jealously guarded and hard-won privileges built up over the centuries are not subverted by people like Mr. Duncan Campbell.

Mr. Michael Foot: The hon. Member for Wycombe (Mr. Whitney) has written a number of articles, as well as the speech that he has delivered, in which he has made some comments about Mr. Duncan Campbell. I can only describe his comments as odious; I think that is the politest word to describe them. It is disgraceful that the hon. Gentleman should renew the attack on that basis, particularly in the light of the revelations of the dining and luncheon companions of the Attorney-General. If Duncan Campbell was the figure described by the hon. Gentleman, I hardly think that the Attorney-General would have been so persistent in the arrangements that he made.
If it were not for the serious nature of the debate and the serious nature of the developments for freedom and free discussion in Britain, it would be comic in the extreme


that the Government should present themselves as the great exponent, champion and skilful defender of national security. I can recollect no Government who have been so gratuitously absurd in defending national security as this Government. Whenever they have taken steps to try to suppress an official secret they have detonated the affair across the universe; whenever they have said that they would take steps to protect the secret service they have put up a notice saying, "Please keep away. Spies at work". Whenever they have taken the matter to the courts, thank heaven, a British jury gives them the bird. It seems to be the principle of the Government that the secret agreements that they believe in most must be trumpeted across the world whenever they have the chance by the method in which they manage our affairs.
In this case, if it were true that the revelations about Zircon were so serious, the Government have not dealt with it in a way which they should have. The Independent, in its leading article yesterday, made the perfectly reasonable recommendation that if the Government had decided last October that they wanted to take action to deal with the problem they could have made some quiet announcement of what was going ahead, allowed some controversy on the matter—I know that controversy is something that the Government do not like—and there would have been less stir throughout the country about this. Then the Russians, if they were watching so carefully, would not have had everything supplied in a single copy of the New Statesman.
The Government have no right whatsoever to say that they have protected national security in a sensible manner. They do not have to take it from me, Left-wing journals or Left-wing politicians, because it was stated clearly enough in a leading article in today's Daily Telegraph. It said:
The position of the authorities has been hopelessly compromised by the fact that they knew that Mr. Campbell knew about Zircon many weeks ago, and they failed to do anything about it. It is doubtful whether they can now recover from this failure.
The Daily Telegraph goes on to comment on the honesty and good faith of the Government Front Bench, and the speech of the Secretary of State for Scotland. He usually has a better reputation than the others and we are sorry to see him getting into the same mire. The article says:
We should rejoice, Mr. Rifkind was bold enough to imply, that in this country our police act independently and without political instruction. Opposition members found this hard to swallow. So will a great many other people.
In other words, throughout the country, the claims of the right hon. and learned Gentleman are not believed.
I had hoped that the Home Secretary would have said—perhaps he did in the last sentence or two of his speech—that he was deeply concerned about what had happened in Scotland. In my opinion, what happened to the New Statesman is just as bad, because the fishing expedition there was just as extensive. As I understand it from articles that have subsequently appeared, many matters that were looked into at the New Statesman offices did not directly concern the security question, and many matters could easily have been touched upon by Mr. Peter Kellner, who wrote an article in The Independent a few days later, in which he described how his desk, too, was open to investigation from the secret police.
I know that Conservative Members do not care much about those matters, but anybody concerned with freedom

and the free press in Britain should be concerned, because that is the way in which forms of intimidation can spread. That is why it would have been a scandal if the House of Commons had not shown the strongest opposition and concern about the way in which the enlarged warrant was issued. The right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) is right to press that issue. It is perfectly clear that some of our freedoms are dependent upon the way in which general warrants are drawn. When Wilkes fought the case he said that a general warrant against him was a warrant against the English nation. He might have included the Scottish nation if he had known what the Government were to be up to. It is an offence against the whole nation and that is why the Government should be brought to a halt and called to account for what they did.
Many of us are not prepared to accept the doctrine of the Home Secretary. I suppose that he includes the Solicitor-General for Scotland in this, although in the shaking of his head the Solicitor-General for Scotland has been a little more forthcoming than the Secretary of State for Scotland. The Solicitor-General for Scotland played some part. He is nodding his head again. I refuse to accept the position outlined by the Home Secretary that he had no power, and that whatever the police did he could not have done anything about it. Supposing the Home Secretary shared the opinion of many of us that the police were acting on a warrant that carried their investigations far beyond anything to do with security. Would he not have any powers to intervene? He would have had powers if it had happened in London. The Home Secretary says not. I do not believe it. The right hon. Gentleman has responsibilities for the way in which the police conduct themselves. If the police had acted in a way that he thought outrageous, he would have been able to intervene. It is a combination of the two. I am not just criticising the police— although there may be criticism of them— but the result is something of which the House must take note if it has any care for freedom at all.

Mr. Hurd: I tried to cover that point in my speech. Whether it is myself as the police authority of the Metropolis or police authorities in other parts of the country, we do not have the right or power to intervene in the investigation by the police of a criminal matter. That is a statement of fact and the right hon. Member for Morley and Leeds, South (Mr. Rees) will confirm that.

Mr. Foot: If the right hon. Gentleman had listened more carefully to what I said, he would know that I am perfectly justified in what I am saying. Many Opposition Members believe that it was a monstrous invasion of our freedoms that such an event should have taken place in Scotland. Looking at the facts, there was an almost equally monstrous invasion of our freedom, with all the possibilities of intimidation that are involved, by the entry into the New Statesman.
It is a combination of those factors that led to this position, and we have a right and duty to disentangle the factors to try to discover how much was due to the general warrant being stated in general terms; how much was due to the police exceeding their powers; how much was due to the failure of the Law Officers to intervene at a much earlier stage and say that we must be constrained about these matters and preserve some respect for our civil liberties in the process of doing it. If the Attorney-General


says that he has no power to intervene, he is saying that we are in a police state because the police can do anything without anybody doing anything about it.
We all want to be brief, but there are many important issues touching on the way in which we conduct these matters. Let us consider the intervention of Ministers. There is no dispute that at one stage the Prime Minister called upon the Foreign Secretary. I do not know what powers he was to assume, but at any rate he was given some authority in the matter. He was given some authority to invite my right hon. Friends to discuss the security questions with him. I do not know what was said and I am sure that my right hon. Friends would not divulge what was said. But I wonder whether in those discussions the Foreign Secretary mentioned some likely later developments. Did the Foreign Secretary mention at those discussions that within a short time efforts would be made to intervene in the way in which the House of Commons conducts its affairs; to intervene in a way quite unknown in our previous methods of doing our business to bring pressure upon Mr. Speaker? Did the Foreign Secretary say that that was one of the courses that the Government were seeking to follow? I doubt it very much indeed. Of course, if he did not, he was also helping to mislead.
Private meetings with Privy Councillors are not banned subjects. We all know what can happen. Did the Foreign Secretary say that not only would there be an investigation into Mr. Campbell and the New Statesman, but that the investigation would be carried much wider, that the BBC would be brought into it and that all the programmes might be open to a warrant which would later be issued? But even if words such as warrant were not mentioned, surely such matters should have been properly discussed if national security was so deeply involved. If at that meeting the Foreign Secretary did not mention the attempt to suppress the discussion and free dissemination of information in the House, or how the matter was to be carried further against the BBC, he was not his usual expansive self.

The Attorney-General: I can give the right hon. Gentleman the firmest assurance that there is no way in which my right hon. and learned Friend the Foreign Secretary could have spoken of any intended police operation initiated by me because I had not discussed it with any Minister.

Mr. Foot: In that case, we are asked to believe that the Government decided that the Foreign Secretary was to undertake discussions about national security with the Opposition parties without mentioning the Government's thoughts on how the protection of national security should be followed. I find that difficult to believe. It may be that the Government said that they would talk to the Opposition leaders without saying what they had in mind. If so, that was a grossly misleading way of dealing with right hon. Members at such a major point in the whole conference.
There is a combination of two reasons for our being in such trouble and why our freedoms are threatened. If it were not for the protests made in the House, presumably such events as this could be repeated often on future occasions, but the protests will have done something to check that. There is a combination of two reasons why we have been forced into a position so threatening to our

freedoms. Partly it is the nature of the law—the Official Secrets Act itself. I agree with all those who say that it must be reformed. We all know that reform is belated. We all know the history of that. Partly this arises from the nature of that law and it is because of that that warrants are so often drawn up in such a shameful, shocking and unworkable way, as I am sure the Government will discover.
But the reason for this situation is not only the nature of the law; it is also the nature of the Government and the way in which they deal with these crises. It is part of the Government's approach to respect for the powers of the Law Officers. I would be surprised if the Attorney-General claimed that he has always had proper respect from the Prime Minister in these matters. It is the Westland way of dealing with the Law Officers which has partly led to his situation. It is the Robert Armstrong method of dealing with the truth which has led to this situation. It is that seedy, shabby amalgamation of the failure of the Government to understand the real principles involved and their record of always searching for the dirtiest way out of a corner. That is what we have seen from the Government, and the sooner we get rid of them the better.

Mr. Allan Stewart: I want to follow the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent (Mr. Foot) on one point, but first let me tell the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Millan) that, of course, the procurator fiscal presented a petition to the sheriff with the authority of the Lord Advocate. That is what my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland told the House this afternoon. The right hon. Member for Govan, followed by the right hon. Member for Blaenau Gwent, made a most serious charge against my right hon. and noble Friend the Lord Advocate. The thrust of his speech was that the Lord Advocate has acted improperly. In particular, he has alleged that the Lord Advocate acted in a political manner rather than exercising, properly and objectively, his function as a Law. Officer of the Crown. That is a most serious and wholly unjustified charge.
I represent a Strathclyde constituency and many police officers live there. I speak also with some personal experience as a former Minister with responsibility for home affairs in the Scottish Office. Many comments, particularly those made yesterday by Opposition Members about the Strathclyde police, are outrageous.
Of course, as the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) has said, hon. Members are entitled to criticise particular police operations, but yesterday, one after the other, Opposition Members alleged that the police take political orders. Hon. Members should recognise that that is a serious charge. The idea that chief constable Andrew Sloan of Strathclyde takes political orders from the Scottish Office is preposterous, as anyone who knows anything about the matter will realise. Yet that was the constant theme of question after question yesterday to my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State. It was the theme of the right hon. Member for Chesterfield (Mr. Benn), the hon. Member for Linlithgow (Mr. Dalyell), and even the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar), who described the police operation as being
meant as a warning and a form of intimidation".


Even the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Hillhead (Mr. Jenkins) said:
the Government must take responsibility for the investigation … who is politically responsible for this operation … the Government are … running a second-rate police state"—[Official Report, 2 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 692.]
The right hon. Member for Devonport did not repeat today his initial criticism of the police action as being outrageous. However, I end on this note. The right hon. Gentleman and Opposition Members will live to regret some of their remarks. They have made allegations without a shred of evidence. They should have heeded the warning of my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) yesterday, who suggested that they should have awaited first the outcome of these investigations.

Mrs. Ann Clwyd: I have seen the film not once but half a dozen times. I must confess that I am totally puzzled about what in the film challenges national security. I have looked at it over and over again until my eyes are sore. The only conclusion I have come to is that the Government must be afraid of the animal lobby because the film has a shot of a monkey being orbited into space. That is the only reason that I can imagine for the Government opposing the viewing of the film by the British public.
Before going to such extraordinary lengths to prevent the transmission of the film and to prevent, apparently, the transmission of the other five films in the series, I wonder why no one asked Duncan Campbell some questions on the record, because presumably the purpose of the whole exercise is to find out who leaked this information which is such a challenge to national security.
No one asked Duncan Campbell any questions. He has never been asked who his mole is, or moles are. The only question that the police asked him was where the transmission master tapes were. It is extraordinary that the security services and the Government should go to such extraordinary lengths when they have not asked the main suspect the obvious question. I imagine that, if asked, his answer would be that all his moles appear in the film which has been banned by the BBC. They are the former permanent under-secretary in the Ministry of Defence and the former chief scientific adviser to the Ministry of Defence. They all appear in the film.
The British Aerospace plc press officer must have released the vital bit of information that, whatever was going to be sent into space, would circle at 53 degrees east. That was the key to the fact that the satellite would orbit over the Soviet Union. Before they go to any other such lengths—they are obviously bungling all their attempts to get at the truth—why not ask Mr. Duncan Campbell directly who his mole or moles were?
There are two alternative versions of events which led, presumably, to the Government's actions and the actions of the security forces. Was investigative journalism used as the pretext for irresponsible and damaging reporting of a politically biased nature or was the term "national security" used as the pretext for obsessive and futile secrecy which apparently broke an agreement to Parliament and was therefore politically biased by nature? Labour Members believe the latter to be the truth.
We have a right to know what was the matter of national security which Duncan Campbell and the film are supposed to have breached. We cannot take that on faith

because there are too many examples of the Government using the term "national security" or "confidential" to cover up information which is an open secret in every other country.
Not long ago I asked the former Secretary of State for Defence three questions about air land battle because, at that time, the Government were discussing with NATO ways of modernising battlefield nuclear weapons. To each of those three written questions the Secretary of State for Defence answered "Confidential". Yet exactly three days earlier in Brussels, according to the International Herald Tribune, General Bernard William Rogers, the supreme allied commander of NATO, had briefed journalists on the answers to each of those three specific questions. That is why, until we know exactly what the Government's definition of national security, confidential and secrecy is, we cannot take these things on trust.
Since last week, when the Government completely bungled their attempt to prevent Duncan Campbell from publishing what is now a politically embarrassing story about the Ministry of Defence and the Government, they have used dubious and erratic means to cover their embarrassment. They have tried to link investigative journalism and Left-wing politics with the subversion of national security.
The Government are rapidly taking us in the direction of Franco's Spain where people are dragged from their beds in the middle of the night, where people's homes are ransacked and where censorship is the rule of the day, all to cover up by repressive means the Government's political embarrassment. When the Government are prepared to allow Parliament properly to supervise the costly activities of the Ministry of Defence and when they are prepared— there seemed to be some indication this afternoon that they would be— to replace the totally discredited Official Secrets Act with a Freedom of Information Act, we can more easily define what should be kept secret in the national interest and what should rightly be public knowledge. Until that time, if only the Left in politics demand such information in the public interest and to protect the freedom of the press and broadcasting, we are content to assume that role.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The longer this emergency debate has gone on the harder it has been, at least for Conservative Members, to understand what exactly is the principal charge that the various Opposition voices are levelling against the Government.
The hon. Member for Cynon Valley (Mrs. Clwyd) echoed the cry that we were entering a police state, with Franco's Spain being the norm in today's society. The mere fact that we are having this debate at all gives the lie to that. I can hardly think of another country in the world whose national legislature would suspend its proceeding; for three hours to tackle what is, after all, still a comparatively minor episode of police activity. Then there was the charge that the warrants had been far too wide, but that surely is a matter for the courts and not something which the Government control, eloquent though the right hon. Member for Plymouth, Devonport (Dr. Owen) was in his efforts to make us all feel that somehow it was the hon. Members on the Treasury Bench who were responsible for that. Then it was suggested that police


action was in some way over-zealous. If that is the case, the remedy for that surely lies in the Police Complaints Authority procedures.
The real issue has to some extent been missed. The real issue is the degree of Government involvement and the judgment that lies behind it. Here we come to a sad legacy of the Official Secrets Act which remains, to some extent, the villain of the whole piece. It has created this curious schizophrenia in the role of the Attorney-General, or the Law Officers of the day, who have to divide their judicial personalities on the one hand from their political personalities on the other. All lawyers believe totally that this is an easy and simple split of the personality. All laymen frankly have their doubts as to whether any politician can ever completely keep political considerations out of his mind when he is in the judicial sector even though he is doing his best to exercise his judicial role.
In a case of this sort some measure of Government involvement is inevitable and totally proper and correct. We start from the point of an Act on the statute book which requires the consent of the Attorney-General of the day and his fiat before a prosecution can be brought. That is what makes an Official Secrets Act activity a completely different type of activity from any other sector of the criminal law.
There is no way in which an investigation of a possible breach of the Official Secrets Act can be triggered other than by the Attorney-General or the Law Officers instructing the Director of Public Prosecutions that a prima facie breach may have occurred and the police must investigate it. That is standard practice but standard practice goes further than that.
From my experience, which was acquired at the sharp end of the Official Secrets Act, the involvement of the Law Officers and the Government is not confined solely to the initial directive to the Director of Public Prosecutions and a final issuing of a fiat. When a public interest issue arises in the course of an Official Secrets Act investigation, the Director of Public Prosecutions or the special branch officers involved normally refer back to their political masters, the Law Officers, for some guidance. For example, and without being unduly personal, the official secrets case in which I was involved— which had no national security implications and which ended, happily, in acquittals—required difficult decisions by the special branch— for instance, whether to raid the offices of Yorkshire Television, whether to raid the offices of the Thirsk and Malton Conservative association, whether to tape record certain conversations and how to approach and investigate certain political figures, such as our late colleague Sir Hugh Fraser and Lord Hartwell. From discussions after the case, I happen to know that with such difficult decisions the special branch referred to higher guidance on what action to take.
With the current position, the question that arises—unless the practice has changed—is whether the Director of Public Prosecutions and his special branch team felt it necessary to refer to the Law Officers before authorising the raid on the BBC offices. After all, a decision to raid the offices of the BBC would not usually be treated as a run-of-the-mill operational matter, to be handled by an ordinary police officer. I am not suggesting that the BBC holds a privileged status in law, far from it, but it is not yet the equivalent of Fagin's kitchen or Ali Baba's cave on

which the police might feel free to swoop in the course of their inquiries. The BBC is a law-abiding institution of international repute, and is quite naturally surrounded by public interest considerations. Therefore, the police must have wanted someone's authority to raid the BBC as a matter of public policy.
Who gave that authority and why? The first part of that question was answered in what was, at the time, a rather curiously unquestioned phrase by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland yesterday, when he said that it was the Lord Advocate. But with all respect to the Lord Advocate in his Highland fastness, is he fully familiar with the national security implications of the Zircon affair? If so, on whose advice was he acting and on what basis?
We come now to the vital issue—that of judgment. The Government do not need to be bashful or defensive when giving the answer. After all, we laymen do not have—

The Solicitor-General for Scotland (Mr. Peter Fraser): I wish to make the position clear. As my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland said yesterday, the application to the sheriff in Glasgow for a warrant was made by the procurator fiscal with the authority of the Lord Advocate. As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary said today, that was done with an officer of the Metropolitan police taking an oath before the sheriff.
It is not directly the responsibility of the Lord Advocate to secure the search warrant. He is there to ensure that, first, the warrant is sufficient to meet its purposes and, secondly, that it does not go beyond what is required. In those circumstances, an application is made—[Interruption.]. It is quite clear and the extent of his authority is spelt out. Thereafter—and this may be of interest to my hon. Friend—it was not once, not twice, but on three occasions that the extent of the warrant used was before the court. At that time, the BBC was represented by the senior Queen's counsel at the Scottish Bar.

Mr. Aitken: The House will think that a revealing and helpful intervention. If I have it right—and obviously I am not experienced in the Iolanthe-like dance of Scottish legal figures—it appears that there was an element of judgment by the Law Officer. The Government need not be defensive about that and say that it is a matter entirely for the police. We laymen cannot possibly seek to challenge that judgment at this stage. Perhaps the national security implications of the Zircon affair are serious, in which case the Government must say so, and say also that the BBC was raided as a matter of Government policy to protect our national security interests. If such a statement were made, I think that we would all accept the authority of the Government spokesman and take a step backwards, at least until the outcome of the trial—[HON. MEMBERS: "No."] However, if such a statement is not made, there will be a lingering impression that the authorities have been engaged in something dangerously close to an intimidating fishing expedition. That would be a bad precedent and would worry me. I seek an assurance from my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland that will calm my fears.

Mr. Donald Dewar: There have been spirited exchanges during the debate, but the test is not simply the concern and anger felt in the House; it is what I detect to be a feeling throughout the country that something has gone wrong and that something rather sinister and unpleasant is afoot. What should have been a discreet investigation carried out with proper regard for the rights of others has, in the view of many members of the public, become marked by bully-boy tactics, and there is something of the smell of a vendetta about it.
I wish to make it perfectly clear that, despite what was suggested, we are not saying that the press should be immune from the legal process and that it should be given a privileged position. However, we contend that events during the past few days, and specifically those in Glasgow, were conducted with an insensitivity that must be challenged in this House and in public debate.
There may well have been an offence committed under section 2 of the Official Secrets Act 1911. Certainly— and I wish to make this clear—if there was prima facie evidence that that was so, the authorities had a right and perhaps a duty to investigate. However, everyone in the House—and it is almost common ground—agrees that the Official Secrets Act can be used by authorities as a weapon to inhibit the curiosity that every citizen has a right to exhibit. The events of the past few days have done nothing to allay the fears.
A number of serious questions arise, and are being properly canvassed. We know that the procurator fiscal played a central part in obtaining the warrants. We know that the Metropolitan police appealed to him for his assistance and that that was given. When the bill of suspension appeared before Lord Clyde, a very senior advocate depute appeared on behalf of the authorities. We have been told quite frankly by the Secretary of State for Scotland and others that all that was done on the Lord Advocate's authority.
The Secretary of State attempted to shrug off all but a rather narrow responsibility. But even within that narrow responsibility a number of questions arise that require answers. We had one or two hints of that in a useful intervention when the Solicitor-General for Scotland at last managed to force his way into the debate.
I wish to know exactly what test was applied by the Lord Advocate when he considered his duty in the matter. Did he satisfy himself that there was prima facie evidence that required the issue of a warrant, or did he merely offer his services and those of his Department without any inquiry? We know from what the Solicitor-General for Scotland said that he at least took into account whether the powers being requested were sufficient for the purpose. It is reasonable to assume from that that he also had the power to consider whether they were too widely drafted for the purpose. In other words, he was the central man who took the decision about how the warrant was to be drafted. Therefore, he carries a direct ministerial responsibility, as a Law Officer, for what happened at the BBC headquarters in Glasgow. That, I think, proves that this is not an unjustified debate and that the Opposition are not errant on this occasion. It shows that we are right to inquire into the circumstances.
For the classical avoidance of doubt and to put the matter on the record, will the Secretary of State tell us whether he was contacted by the Lord Advocate and

whether the Lord Advocate notified the Scottish Office of the request made and the decision taken? It is not unreasonable to want answers because the Official Secrets Act is an issue of great sensitivity. A prosecution cannot be mounted without ministerial authority. In those circumstances, it is likely— and, indeed, not unreasonable—that the Secretary of State was informed of what was happening by the Lord Advocate. The right hon. and learned Gentleman is shaking his head. Perhaps he will put his position as he wishes it to be known on the record.
What is clear is that the Law Officers were responsible. or at least their staff were, for drawing those warrants. I make no great point about the confusion that arose and the fact that three different warrants were issued. In fact, one warrant was for Duncan Campbell's flat in the west end of Glasgow. It all added to the atmosphere of black farce. Members of the special branch were tramping in and out of the floodlights, with plastic boxes, shuttling backwards and forwards through the fore hall of the BBC. In fact, on Friday night the Secretary of State for Scotland and myself were in the building and if the warrant had been executed that night we could have ended up in plastic boxes. Perhaps that would have been a good swap, but I will not go into that now.
In view of the direct acceptance of ministerial responsibility from the Secretary of State for Scotland— no doubt he speaks for his Law Officer colleagues—why was the warrant drawn as widely as it was? Was the warrant deliberately wide? Such a warrant should be precise and limited because what is involved is the power of forcible entry and the power to search and seize. Such an operation is a fundamental assault on individual liberties and the House should make sure that such operations are carried out with discretion.
Did section 2 of the Official Secrets Act make the wide compass inevitable? If so, it is an indictment of section 2. The Secretary of State for the Home Department used the strange perjinct phrase "No one is wholly content with the operation of the Official Secrets Act". That is a masterly understatement that will do the right hon. Gentleman's reputation for trenchant debate no good.

Sir Eldon Griffiths: rose—

Mr. Dewar: When the Lord Advocate was considering his duties—considering what was and was not sufficient—did he consider using some other statutory authority in Scottish law? For example, the Criminal Justice Act 1975 could have been used to draft a warrant that may have been more precise and less of an omnibus, catch-all solution to this problem. Everything would not have been swept up and carried off. It was not a trawl; it was comprehensive, indiscriminate and a mistake.
Why were the master copies, the back-up copies and cassettes taken away? I am told—that is an important caveat—that not just the scripts and research material were taken away but also notes and personal correspondence. I was not present, but that is what I am told.
During the debate I do not believe that it has been seriously maintained that the other five films— apart from the Zircon film—were in any way a serious threat or potential threat to national security. The trouble is that the public have been left, and I believe many hon. Members have been left, with the view that this was an attempt to stamp out any possibility of the series being shown. That is very odd when invitations to view the film were ten a penny in central Scotland in the past few days.
I welcome the Home Secretary's assurance that that material which is not connected with further proceedings will be returned as quickly as possible. However, I fear that the weekend's action looks like intimidation—a warning shot. It looks like an attempt to inhibit awkward questions from awkward people. There is a place for awkward questions, for that is the way to get to the truth.
There has been the assertion—it is bound to be just an assertion— that Ministers played no sinister part. However, in view of what the Solicitor-General for Scotland has said about the direct involvement of the Law Officers and the personal testimony of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), there is no clear dividing line. Ministers, in a sense, get involved—perhaps they must be involved—but it is how they use the power to influence future events that is of interest to the House. We shall see what happens because there is certainly more to come.
There is the crucial matter of credibility. I am not in a position to challenge what the Home Secretary has said. If he says he was not involved in an improper or threatening way, we have to take that at face value.
I hope that the Home Secretary will not resent what I say, but what has been said colours my perception of the situation. It has been said that if there had been agreement and co-operation the warrant would have been unnecessary. Certainly, in the early stages, when the offices of the New Statesman were searched there was such cooperation and agreement. Why was there a sudden change of pace? Why a sudden change of tactics?
I am told— I stress that— by people who were involved that the authorities were offered copies of the Zircon film but refused them. Perhaps if there had been cooperation on the other side some later actions would not have taken place and the damage avoided.
I understand—this is a paraphrase from people who were there—that when the senior police officer came back with the third warrant he told the senior executives of the BBC, "There is an easy way and a hard way of doing this. The easy way is to hand over the evidence voluntarily, and the hard way is that I will flood the building with police officers and take it apart." I do not believe that that squares with some of things said about the atmosphere in which the search was conducted.
Perhaps it would be helpful if I were to remind the House of what the Secretary of State for Scotland— I want to be fair to him— said, because it gave a very different impression of how the BBC acted:
I understand that the BBC technicians were asked whether they would be willing to come in to assist those taking part, and that they voluntarily chose to do so because they were aware of their public responsibilities."— [Official Report, 2 February 1987; Vol. 109, c. 695.]
My impression is that the BBC has been aware of its responsibilities. [Interruption.] I do not like the sniping coming from the Conservative Benches.
There is another reason for anxiety. The events must be seen against a backcloth of what I can only describe as a vendetta against the BBC. It has been conducted by the chairman of the Conservative party. I would describe it as a ludicrous vendetta if I were not left with the strong, uncomfortable feeling that it was one of the factors that led to the recent decision of the director-general of the

BBC to leave. It is a record which breeds a certain cynicism when Ministers appear at the Dispatch Box to protest their innocence.
Earlier today the Prime Minister said—perhaps I did not catch her exact words—that the Opposition would do anything except to help the police. That is not the situation. We are having this debate because we believe that it is necessary. It is not a form of political opportunism. It is not an incompetent debate because of some theoretical lack of ministerial responsibility. The reputation of the police is a public asset and should be carefully guarded. The events of the past few days have damaged that reputation. We will not be put off or deterred. We have a duty to press for the facts and to make sure that, despite the special pleading from the Government Benches, this House ensures that the necessary hard lessons have been learnt from this unfortunate episode and that a damaging precedent is buried for all time.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Malcolm Rifkind): During the course of the debate there has been a remarkable transformation in the position of the Opposition. The background to the debate centres on the responsibility for the police operations that took place within the Strathclyde region at the BBC headquarters in Glasgow. The comments of the Leader of the Opposition suggest that the police operation was directly initiated by my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister. The right hon. Member for Manchester, Gorton (Mr. Kaufman) said that it was part of a vengeful, spiteful, fishing expedition and that the Prime Minister had let the special branch loose on the BBC in Glasgow. That was not the charge that we heard from the Opposition spokesman for Scottish affairs, the hon. Member for Glasgow, Garscadden (Mr. Dewar). He was very careful, with his customary attention to accuracy, to confine any question of responsibility to what he suggested was the responsibility of the Lord Advocate—and indeed, as he said, the Lord Advocate acting as a Law Officer. The hon. Gentleman did not make any attempt—he knows perfectly well why—to suggest that the raid, the intervention, the police operation at the BBC offices in Glasgow was in any way the Government's responsibility.
I will comment on the position of the Lord Advocate, because the hon. Member for Garscadden sought to imply and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) mistakenly sought to suggest that the Lord Advocate in his role is in any way judging the desirability of whether a search warrant should be obtained, and, if so, the manner in which it should be executed. The Lord Advocate's function is simple and straightforward. Having been presented with evidence by the Metropolitan police and the Strathclyde police, it was his duty to ensure that the matter was properly presented before the court. It was for the court and the court alone to decide whether the circumstances justified the granting of a search warrant and, if so, its terms.

Mr. George Foulkes: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give way?

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry, but I shall not give way.
The hon. Member for Garscadden knows perfectly well that neither the Lord Advocate nor any other Law Officer


north or south of the border exercises any judgment about what are essentially the operational decisions of the police or the proper discretion of a court of law.

Mr. Milian: It was made clear in the intervention by the Solicitor-General for Scotland that the Lord Advocate authorised the terms of the warrant—in other words, he knew the terms of the warrant. Were those terms deliberately drawn to take in all six films and did the Lord Advocate agree to that?

Mr. Rifkind: The Lord Advocate's duty— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]— and that of the procurator fiscal, who drafts these documents, is to take account of what the police are seeking and then to ensure that the application to the court is in terms that enable the information that the police are seeking to be realised, if the court believes it to be appropriate. I suggest to the right hon. Member for Glasgow, Govan (Mr. Milian) and others who have questioned the width of the warrant and the matters covered by it that we should all accept the very wise advice that my hon. Friend the Member for Eastleigh (Sir D. Price) gave yesterday—that we should await the outcome of these investigations. Only then will it be possible to judge whether the police, in seeking such a warrant, and the court, in granting it, were acting appropriately.

Dr. Owen: Surely the right hon. and learned Gentleman is not saying that the Lord Advocate, any more than the Attorney-General, is a functionary whose sole job is to give legal advice on the terms of the warrant. Surely the Lord Advocate is there in his dual role as a politician and Minister and as a lawyer to give advice and judgment. Surely the judgment that the Lord Advocate has to give is on how wide the warrant should be.

Mr. Rifkind: I am afraid that the right hon. Gentleman has got it totally wrong. First, as with any Law Officer, in these circumstances the Lord Advocate does not have a dual role— he has a single role as a Law Officer. Secondly, the width of any warrant sought is a matter not for the police or for the Lord Advocate but for the courts. [HON. MEMBERS: "Not true."] As the right hon. Gentleman knows perfectly well—

Mr. Foulkes: rose—

Mr. Milian: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I am sorry. I am not giving way.

Mr. John Morris: The House would very much like to know whether the Lord Advocate agreed, desired or assisted in the drafting of a warrant which included six programmes rather than one.

Mr. Rifkind: The function of the Lord Advocate— [HoN. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."] The function of the Lord Advocate was to give his authority to the presentation to the courts of an application requested by the police. It was for the courts then to determine whether that warrant should be granted.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I shall not give way.

Hon. Members: Answer the question.

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. and learned Member is not giving way.

Mr. Rifkind: I have already given way more than any official Opposition spokesman. Given that the whole basis of the argument—

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Rifkind: I am not giving way. Given that the whole basis—[Interruption .]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has been a very good debate so far. There are three more minutes and I ask the House to listen in silence.

Mr. Rifkind: The case raised by the Leader of the Opposition and by the right hon. Member for Gorton— [HON. MEMBERS: "Answer the question."]— was simply based on the extraordinary and absurd proposition that Her Majesty's Government sought to involve themselves in the question whether a search warrant should be applied for in regard to particular premises and the execution of that warrant. The Opposition have not produced an iota of evidence to substantiate a very grave charge. When Opposition Members who aspire to be Ministers of the Crown make serious allegations of the kind that they have chosen to make today, the House and the country are at least entitled to assume that those allegations are based on evidence and not on the most disreputable distribution of rumour, innuendo and allegation, unsubstantiated by any evidence. If the right hon. Member for Gorton raised an action in the courts based on the total absence of evidence that we have noted today. I would not fancy his prospects of success and he would probably be found to be wasting the court's time.
As my right hon. Friend the Home Secretary correctly said, we have seen extraordinary confusion among the Opposition. They accuse the Government on the one hand of intervening and on the other hand of abdicating their responsibilities by not preventing the police from initiating the action that they wished to take. I have no hesitation in saying to all hon. Members who are prepared to judge these matters on the basis of evidence rather than innuendo that they should reject the Opposition's charges and show the country their confidence in the independence of our police.

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Member must have the leave of the House to speak again.

Hon. Members: No.

Mr. John Wakeham: rose—

Mr. Dewar: rose—

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 200, Noes 351.

Division No. 77]
[6.50 pm


AYES


Abse, Leo
Beckett, Mrs Margaret


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Beith, A. J.


Alton, David
Bell, Stuart


Anderson, Donald
Benn, Rt Hon Tony


Archer, Rt Hon Peter
Bennett, A. (Dent'n &amp; Red'sh)


Ashdown, Paddy
Bermingham, Gerald


Ashley, Rt Hon Jack
Bidwell, Sydney


Ashton, Joe
Blair, Anthony


Atkinson, N. (Tottenham)
Boothroyd, Miss Betty


Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Boyes, Roland


Banks, Tony (Newham NW)
Bray, Dr Jeremy


Barron, Kevin
Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)




NOES


Adley, Robert
Cormack, Patrick


Aitken, Jonathan
Corrie, John


Alexander, Richard
Couchman, James


Alison, Rt Hon Michael
Cranborne, Viscount


Amery, Rt Hon Julian
Critchley, Julian


Amess, David
Crouch, David


Ancram, Michael
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Arnold, Tom
Dickens, Geoffrey


Aspinwall, Jack
Dicks, Terry


Atkins, Rt Hon Sir H.
Dorrell, Stephen


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Dover, Den


Baker, Rt Hon K. (Mole Vall'y)
du Cann, Rt Hon Sir Edward


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Dunn, Robert


Baldry, Tony
Dykes, Hugh


Banks, Robert (Harrogate)
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Batiste, Spencer
Eggar, Tim


Beaumont-Dark, Anthony
Emery, Sir Peter


Bellingham, Henry
Evennett, David


Bendall, Vivian
Eyre, Sir Reginald


Benyon, William
Fairbairn, Nicholas


Best, Keith
Farr, Sir John


Biffen, Rt Hon John
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Finsberg, Sir Geoffrey


Blackburn, John
Fletcher, Sir Alexander


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fookes, Miss Janet


Body, Sir Richard
Forman, Nigel


Bonsor, Sir Nicholas
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Bottomley, Peter
Forth, Eric


Bottomley, Mrs Virginia
Fowler, Rt Hon Norman


Bowden, A. (Brighton K'to'n)
Fox, Sir Marcus


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Franks, Cecil


Boyson, Dr Rhodes
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Braine, Rt Hon Sir Bernard
Freeman, Roger


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Fry, Peter


Bright, Graham
Gale, Roger


Brinton, Tim
Galley, Roy


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Gardiner, George (Reigate)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Gardner, Sir Edward (Fylde)


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Gilmour, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Browne, John
Glyn, Dr Alan


Bruinvels, Peter
Goodhart, Sir Philip


Bryan, Sir Paul
Goodlad, Alastair


Buchanan-Smith, Rt Hon A.
Gorst, John


Buck, Sir Antony
Gow, Ian


Budgen, Nick
Gower, Sir Raymond


Bulmer, Esmond
Grant, Sir Anthony


Burt, Alistair
Greenway, Harry


Butler, Rt Hon Sir Adam
Gregory, Conal


Butterfill, John
Griffiths, Sir Eldon


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Grist, Ian


Carttiss, Michael
Ground, Patrick


Cash, William
Grylls, Michael


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gummer, Rt Hon John S


Channon, Rt Hon Paul
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Chapman, Sydney
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Chope, Christopher
Hampson, Dr Keith


Churchill, W. S.
Hanley, Jeremy


Clark, Hon A. (Plym'th S'n)
Hannam, John


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Harris, David


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Harvey, Robert


Clegg, Sir Walter
Haselhurst, Alan


Cockeram, Eric
Havers, Rt Hon Sir Michael


Colvin, Michael
Hawkins, C. (High Peak)


Coombs, Simon
Hawksley, Warren


Cope, John
Hayes, J.

Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Jenkins, Rt Hon Roy (Hillh'd)


Brown, N. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne E)
John, Brynmor


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Jones, Barry (Alyn &amp; Deeside)


Brown, Ron (E'burgh, Leith)
Kaufman, Rt Hon Gerald


Bruce, Malcolm
Kennedy, Charles


Buchan, Norman
Kinnock, Rt Hon Neil


Caborn, Richard
Kirkwood, Archy


Callaghan, Rt Hon J.
Lambie, David


Callaghan, Jim (Heyw'd &amp; M)
Lamond, James


Campbell-Savours, Dale
Leadbitter, Ted


Canavan, Dennis
Leighton, Ronald


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
Litherland, Robert


Carter-Jones, Lewis
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Cartwright, John
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
Loyden, Edward


Clarke, Thomas
McCartney, Hugh


Clay, Robert
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Clelland, David Gordon
McGuire, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
MacKenzie, Rt Hon Gregor


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Maclennan, Robert


Cohen, Harry
McNamara, Kevin


Coleman, Donald
McTaggart, Robert


Conlan, Bernard
McWilliam, John


Cook, Frank (Stockton North)
Madden, Max


Cook, Robin F. (Livingston)
Marek, Dr John


Corbett, Robin
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Cox, Thomas (Tooting)
Martin, Michael


Craigen, J. M.
Mason, Rt Hon Roy


Crowther, Stan
Maxton, John


Cunliffe, Lawrence
Maynard, Miss Joan


Davies, Rt Hon Denzil (L'Ili)
Meacher, Michael


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
Meadowcroft, Michael


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Michie, William


Deakins, Eric
Mikardo, Ian


Dewar, Donald
Milian, Rt Hon Bruce


Dixon, Donald
Mitchell, Austin (G't Grimsby)


Dobson, Frank
Morris, Rt Hon A. (W'shawe)


Dormand, Jack
Morris, Rt Hon J. (Aberavon)


Dubs, Alfred
Nellist, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Oakes, Rt Hon Gordon


Dunwoody, Hon Mrs G.
O'Brien, William


Eadie, Alex
O'Neill, Martin


Eastham, Ken
Orme, Rt Hon Stanley


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Owen, Rt Hon Dr David


Fatchett, Derek
Park, George


Faulds, Andrew
Patchett, Terry


Field, Frank (Birkenhead)
Pavitt, Laurie


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Pendry, Tom


Fisher, Mark
Pike, Peter


Flannery, Martin
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Foot, Rt Hon Michael
Randall, Stuart


Forrester, John
Raynsford, Nick


Foster, Derek
Redmond, Martin


Foulkes, George
Rees, Rt Hon M. (Leeds S)


Fraser, J. (Norwood)
Richardson, Ms Jo


Freeson, Rt Hon Reginald
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Garrett, W. E.
Roberts, Ernest (Hackney N)


George, Bruce
Robertson, George


Gilbert, Rt Hon Dr John
Rogers, Allan


Godman, Dr Norman
Rooker, J. W.


Golding, Mrs Llin
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Gourlay, Harry
Rowlands, Ted


Hamilton, James (M'well N)
Sedgemore, Brian


Hamilton, W. W. (Fife Central)
Sheldon, Rt Hon R.


Hancock, Michael
Shore, Rt Hon Peter


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Hart, Rt Hon Dame Judith
Short, Mrs R.(W'hampt'n NE)


Hattersley, Rt Hon Roy
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Haynes, Frank
Skinner, Dennis


Healey, Rt Hon Denis
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Heffer, Eric S.
Smith, Rt Hon J. (M'ds E)


Hogg, N. (C'nauld &amp; Kilsyth)
Snape, Peter


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)
Soley, Clive


Home Robertson, John
Spearing, Nigel


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Steel, Rt Hon David


Hoyle, Douglas
Stewart, Rt Hon D. (W Isles)


Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)
Stott, Roger


Hughes, Roy (Newport East)
Strang, Gavin


Hughes, Simon (Southwark)
Straw, Jack


Janner, Hon Greville
Thomas, Dafydd (Merioneth)

Thompson, J. (Wansbeck)
White, James


Thorne, Stan (Preston)
Wigley, Dafydd


Tinn, James
Williams, Rt Hon A.


Torney, Tom
Winnick, David


Wainwright, R.
Woodall, Alec


Wallace, James
Young, David (Bolton SE)


Wardell, Gareth (Gower)



Wareing, Robert
Tellers for the Ayes:


Weetch, Ken
Mr. Sean Hughes and


Welsh, Michael
Mr. Allen McKay.

Hayhoe, Rt Hon Sir Barney
Lyell, Nicholas


Hayward, Robert
McCurley, Mrs Anna


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Macfarlane, Neil


Heddle, John
MacGregor, Rt Hon John


Henderson, Barry
MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)


Hickmet, Richard
MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)


Hicks, Robert
Maclean, David John


Higgins, Rt Hon Terence L.
McLoughlin, Patrick


Hill, James
McNair-Wilson, M. (N'bury)


Hind, Kenneth
McNair-Wilson, P. (New F'st)


Hirst, Michael
McQuarrie, Albert


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Major, John


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Malins, Humfrey


Holt, Richard
Malone, Gerald


Hordern, Sir Peter
Maples, John


Howard, Michael
Marland, Paul


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Marlow, Antony


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Marshall, Michael (Arundel)


Howe, Rt Hon Sir Geoffrey
Mates, Michael


Howell, Rt Hon D. (G'Idford)
Mather, Sir Carol


Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Mawhinney, Dr Brian


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin


Hunt, John (Ravensbourne)
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hunter, Andrew
Mellor, David


Hurd, Rt Hon Douglas
Merchant, Piers


Irving, Charles
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Jackson, Robert
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Jenkin, Rt Hon Patrick
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Jessel, Toby
Mills, Sir Peter (West Devon)


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Miscampbell, Norman


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Moate, Roger


Jopling, Rt Hon Michael
Montgomery, Sir Fergus


Joseph, Rt Hon Sir Keith
Moore, Rt Hon John


Key, Robert
Morrison, Hon C. (Devizes)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Moynihan, Hon C.


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Mudd, David


Knowles, Michael
Murphy, Christopher


Knox, David
Neale, Gerrard


Lamont, Rt Hon Norman
Nelson, Anthony


Lang, Ian
Neubert, Michael


Latham, Michael
Nicholls, Patrick


Lawler, Geoffrey
Normanton, Tom


Lawrence, Ivan
Norris, Steven


Lawson, Rt Hon Nigel
Oppenheim, Phillip


Lee, John (Pendle)
Oppenheim, Rt Hon Mrs S.


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Osborn, Sir John


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Ottaway, Richard


Lester, Jim
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Lewis, Sir Kenneth (Stamf'd)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Lightbown, David
Parkinson, Rt Hon Cecil


Lilley, Peter
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Pawsey, James


Lord, Michael
Peacock, Mrs Elizabeth


Luce, Rt Hon Richard
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian

Pollock, Alexander
Stokes, John


Porter, Barry
Stradling Thomas, Sir John


Portillo, Michael
Sumberg, David


Powell, William (Corby)
Tapsell, Sir Peter


Powley, John
Taylor, John (Solihull)


Prentice, Rt Hon Reg
Taylor, Teddy (S'end E)


Price, Sir David
Tebbit, Rt Hon Norman


Proctor, K. Harvey
Temple-Morris, Peter


Raffan, Keith
Thatcher, Rt Hon Mrs M.


Raison, Rt Hon Timothy
Thomas, Rt Hon Peter


Rathbone, Tim
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


Rees, Rt Hon Peter (Dover)
Thompson, Patrick (N'ich N)


Rhodes James, Robert
Thorne, Neil (Ilford S)


Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon
Thornton, Malcolm


Ridley, Rt Hon Nicholas
Thurnham, Peter


Ridsdale, Sir Julian
Townend, John (Bridlington)


Rifkind, Rt Hon Malcolm
Townsend, Cyril D. (B'heath)


Rippon, Rt Hon Geoffrey
Tracey, Richard


Roberts, Wyn (Conwy)
Trippier, David


Robinson, Mark (N'port W)
Trotter, Neville


Roe, Mrs Marion
Twinn, Dr Ian


Rossi, Sir Hugh
van Straubenzee, Sir W.


Rost, Peter
Vaughan, Sir Gerard


Rowe, Andrew
Waddington, Rt Hon David


Ryder, Richard
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


Sackville, Hon Thomas
Waldegrave, Hon William


Sainsbury, Hon Timothy
Walden, George


St. John-Stevas, Rt Hon N.
Wall. Sir Patrick


Sayeed, Jonathan
Waller, Gary


Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)
Walters, Dennis


Shaw, Sir Michael (Scarb')
Ward, John


Shelton, William (Streatham)
Wardle, C. (Bexhill)


Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)
Warren, Kenneth


Shepherd, Richard (Aldridge)
Watts, John


Shersby, Michael
Wells, Sir John (Maidstone)


Silvester, Fred
Wheeler, John


Sims, Roger
Whitfield, John


Skeet, Sir Trevor
Whitney, Raymond


Smith, Tim (Beaconsfield)
Wiggin, Jerry


Soames, Hon Nicholas
Wilkinson, John


Speed, Keith
Winterton, Mrs Ann


Spencer, Derek
Winterton, Nicholas


Spicer, Jim (Dorset W)
Wolfson, Mark


Spicer, Michael (S Worcs)
Wood, Timothy


Squire, Robin
Woodcock, Michael


Stanbrook, Ivor
Yeo, Tim


Stanley, Rt Hon John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Steen, Anthony
Younger, Rt Hon George


Stern, Michael



Stevens, Lewis (Nuneaton)
Tellers for the Noes:


Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)
Mr. Robert Boscawen and


Stewart, Andrew (Sherwood)
Mr. Tristan Garel-Jones.


Stewart, Ian (Hertf'dshire N)

Question accordingly negatived.

Orders of the Day — Channel Tunnel Bill

As amended (in the Select Committee and on re-committal to the Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

No GOVERNMENT GRANTS TO RAILWAYS BOARD IN RESPECT OF INTERNATIONAL RAILWAY SERVICES

'— (1) No obligation with respect to international railway services shall be imposed on the Railways Board under section 3 of the Railways Act 1974 (imposition of obligations in connection with certain Community regulations giving rise to payments by way of compensation).

(2) In ascertaining any relevant deficit of the Railways Board's railway undertaking for the purposes of section 1 of the Transport (Financial Provisions) Act 1977 (power of Secretary of State to make grants in respect of such a deficit) there shall be disregarded so much of the revenue and expenditure properly attributable to revenue account as is referable to the provision of international railway services.

(3) In this section "international railway services" means services for the carriage of passengers or goods by way of the tunnel system.'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

7 pm

The Minister of State, Department of Transport (Mr. David Mitchell): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this, it will be convenient to take Government amendments Nos. 3 to 6.

Mr. Mitchell: It may be helpful if I sketch the background to this new clause. The Select Committee's concern was to embody in the Bill the commitment in article 1(1) of the treaty that the tunnel should be built without recourse to Government funds or Government guarantees of a financial or commercial nature. As a result, the Select Committee inserted what is now clause 2 into the Bill. It was also concerned about the danger that Government funds might percolate through to Eurotunnel via British Rail. In the Select Committee, a number of hon. Members expressed anxiety on that point, in particular that British Rail might make advance toll payments to the concessionaires, with the benefit of funds provided by the Government. In response, the Government undertook to require British Rail to omit any provision for advance toll payments from the final usage contract and to examine further the whole question.
The issue was again raised in Standing Committee when concern was expressed about the possibility of Government funds reaching the concessionaires by the back door. I said then that the Government's firm intention was that British Rail's services through the tunnel should not attract any of the Government grants for railway support and that we were currently considering whether specific provision to that effect should be made in clause 2. The references are to be found in columns 176 and 177 of the Official Report. New Clause I meets that commitment.
Our objective is to ensure that British Rail does not serve as a channel for Government funds to be provided to Eurotunnel. There need be no ban on British Rail investment in Eurotunnel, whether by advance toll

payments or otherwise, provided that we can be completely satisfied that such investment does not represent indirect Government funding, and this will be made clear to British Rail. The amendment deals unambiguously with the point by blocking any risk of leakage of Government funds into Eurotunnel. Therefore I am confident that we have now closed the loophole that was rightly worrying members of both the Select Committee and the Standing Committee.
The amendments that we are considering at the same time as new clause I are technical amendments to close loopholes and to provide clear remedies for breach of the provision that there shall be no recourse by the concessionaires to Government funds or Government guarantees of a financial or commercial nature.
I said in Committee that the lawyers were crawling over clause 2. They have now finished crawling, and amendments Nos. 3, 4, 5 and 6 are the result. 1 should be happy to explain them in detail to the House, if it is felt that that would be helpful.

Mr. Peter Snape: The Opposition do not disagree with the Government about the new clause. The Minister of State will be aware that the Opposition were anxious in Committee that there should be even-handed treatment of the concessionaires and those already providing cross-Channel services.
The Minister said that advance toll payments will not be allowed. I understand that British Rail could receive advantageous terms from the concessionaires, provided that the toll payments were made in advance. Therefore, it will be a little hard on British Rail if it is to be prevented from taking advantage of those terms.
I understand that the other amendments arise directly from the provisions of this new clause, but does the Minister think that it is perfectly fair and reasonable for British Rail not to be able to engage in a little commercial practice that would benefit the taxpayers and show the public sector in a good light?
This Government in general and the Department of Transport in particular want British Rail to be run in a businesslike manner. This is neither the time nor the place for the Opposition to point out the flaws in the Government's detailed approach, but I should be grateful if the Minister could say whether compensation is to be provided for British Rail if it is to be deprived of this commercial advantage. I stress that the Opposition would not like that advantage to be used to the detriment of those who will continue to be competitors of British Rail in the cross-Channel business.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Every hon. Member will welcome the new clause, because it blocks a possible subsidy loophole. It demonstrates the determination of Her Majesty's Government to honour the commitment that no public funding should be provided and that no guarantees should be offered that would be the equivalent of a loan. The basic commitment of clause 2 on funding is clear and precise. We should be grateful that, when a loophole was discovered, the Government took speedy action to deal with it and to write this provision into the Bill.
I doubt, however, whether the new clause will stick. My fear is that the firm resolve of the Government, which I do not doubt in any way, might be overturned by the direct funding of the railways from European Community


institutions. European laws and decisions take precedence over the decisions of this Government and over our laws, as the 1972 Act makes clear.
I am wondering whether the clause could be adjusted in another place to prevent the promoters from seeking comparable funding, as described in new clause 1, by the back door from the European Community. That is not silly scaremongering. Only this week we saw an example of the way in which clause 2 has been undermined. It provides absolutely clearly that there should be no loans from public funds. However, only a couple of days ago—I am afraid that it was not widely reported—there was the astonishing revelation that the European Investment Bank is apparently in negotiations with the promoters for a soft loan of £1 billion for the tunnel. Quite frankly, if that agreement is concluded it will drive a coach and horses through the Government's pledge of no public funding.
In no sense is the European Investment Bank a commercial bank. Its directors are the Finance Ministers of member states. They get their cash either from loans guaranteed by member states or from direct payments from member states. It was interesting that when the Chancellor announced the autumn statement on public spending he explained that one of the reasons why our contribution to the EEC this year was being increased by £440 million was due to an extra payment to the European Investment Bank. Therefore, the bank obtains its cash from Government, or by raising loans from Government.

Mr. Keith Speed: 1 am grateful to my hon. Friend giving way. He will be aware that the European Investment Bank provided a soft loan for the original Dartford tunnel that links his county with mine. Is he, therefore, against that loan and that tunnel?

Mr. Taylor: That was not bound by the treaty and was one of the means by which we retained some of the money for payments that have been made. My hon. Friend will accept that this issue is rather different in that, because of the competition with ferries, there is a firm pledge of no Government funding.

Mr. Snape: Is it not true that, over the years, the European Investment Bank has lent money for projects such as the airbus, which is causing a little controversy at the moment? Does the hon. Gentleman think that it is fair that he can fly off to the vineyards of southern France—I am sure that he might do so occasionally—on an airbus, some of the finance for which has been provided by the European Investment Bank, but deny that bank the right to invest in a project such as this?

Mr. Taylor: I know that people such as the hon. Gentleman would like to have Government funding and subsidies all over the place. They would like to have a lot more public spending and subsidies for everything in the world. We accept that that is the Labour party's view. However, we are considering a Bill in which the Government have made it abundantly clear that they are not allowing any public funding. The point is that this would be public funding. Could it be described as simply a commercial loan?
I draw the Government's attention to their own information document called "Sources of Information on the European Community", which states on page 117 that the loans given by the EIB are medium term, generally from seven to 12 years, and are,

at an attractive fixed rate of Interest.
In other words, the loans have a subsidised fixed rate of interest. Of course, those loans have been concluded not by the Government, but by the European Investment Bank, of which the Chancellor of the Exchequer is a director. That shows that, despite the pledge given in clause 2, public money is already being negotiated to finance the Channel tunnel. The Government may say that they can do nothing about that. However, it is explained quite clearly in the pamphlet that if a loan is given by the European Investment Bank national Governments are obliged to guarantee it against exchange losses. That means that the Government would have to make a direct payment towards any possible financial losses stemming from that.
I am not in any sense accusing the Government of doing that, because the honour and integrity of the Government are absolutely clear—[Interruption.] I am sure that hon. Members will accept that when the Government say that there is to be no public funding they mean that there is to be no public funding. I doubt whether anybody would question that, and the fact that the new clause has been tabled is a sign of the Government's goodwill. However, despite the clear commitment that there should be no public funding, it seems that there is to be public funding from European sources with a subsidised loan of £1 billion, presumably because the promoters will find difficulty in getting that money elsewhere.

Mr. Mark Wolfson: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for giving way. Is he aware that to lend money to projects that link one or more European countries is entirely in line with the general policy of the European Investment Bank? I appreciate the other line of my hon. Friend's argument, but does he accept that if such lending was denied to this project, Britain would be put at a continuing disadvantage in relation to our competitors in Europe?

Mr. Taylor: I accept everything that my hon. Friend has said. I was pointing out simply that the tunnel is not a normal project because it will be in direct competition with the commercially operated ferries. Therefore, because of the danger of unfair competition, the Government have said that there should be no public funding, and no secret, direct or indirect subsidies. However, despite the fact that the Government said that in fairness to the ferry operators, whose jobs and futures will be at risk if there is subsidised competition, it appears that the tunnel is getting that subsidised help, not because of the Government's actions., but because of the actions of a European Community institution over which we have no direct control. It will be very unfair to the ferry operators if the tunnel gets cheap, subsidised loans from the European Investment Bank which gets its funds from the British Government. It will be monstrous if the Government are to be obliged, whether they like it or not, to provide direct finance for any exchange rate losses.
My comments have not been directly concerned with new clause 1, which states that we are blocking the loophole of assistance to British Rail for international projects. As we have had one clear and specific example of cheap loans of £1 billion going to the tunnel from public funding, which goes right against the message and commitment of clause 2, is there not a danger that exactly


the same thing could happen with the new clause in that assistance could be given to the railway companies, perhaps from the social fund—I doubt whether it would come from the regional fund, but one never knows how such things could be operated— but certainly from another part of European funding?
However, there is one way in which we could avoid that. It could not be done by depriving the European institutions of their rights, because those rights exist, and, of course, are superior to any law of this land. However, surely we can place an obligation on the promoters not to seek any special assistance by way of funding or subsidy from the institutions of the European Community.
I welcome what the Government are trying to do. In this clause they make it clear that when they see a loophole in national funding arrangements they take immediate and effective action to stop it. However, as I regard the tunnel as being not a very viable economic enterprise and as it seems possible, if not likely, that the promoters will run out of money when it has been half built and unlikely that private investors will put sufficient money into it to make it a viable proposition, is there not a great danger in leaving the enormous loophole of European Community funding through guarantees or loans? The one way in which we could avoid that would be for the Government to consider, perhaps in another place, adjusting the new clause to put a statutory obligation on the promoters not to seek special subsidies or funds from the European Community which the Government have rightly said they will not allow the promoters to obtain from Her Majesty's Government or from the Treasury.
I should also like the Government to state whether they will be obliged, under law, whether they like it or not, to make a straight payment to the operators through the funding of possible exchange rate losses on that massive European Investment Bank loan.

Mr. Jonathan Aitken: The new clause is well intentioned and the amendments accompanying it tighten the loophole that existed in the Bill.
I should like to make two short points. The first is in connection with amendment No. 4, which leaves out the words "guarantees of any description". As a man who is in favour of tightening loopholes, I am a little nervous about why the words "of any description" should be deleted from the Bill and merely the word "guarantees" inserted instead. I see at least the possibility of a clever City financier being able to find a guarantee, other than that contained in the clause as amended.
A point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) has taken on a new importance as a result of a press release issued by Eurotunnel about how hard it is working to secure a £1 billion loan from the European Investment Bank. It is surprising to learn that it is trying to secure that new loan. Those of us who have long memories recall that, about nine months ago, Lord Pennock, in a rather ill-judged address on "The World at One" to Mr. Robin Day and his solicitors, advised all Members of Parliament to stop mucking around with the Bill. His justification was that he had banks all over the world to lend him money. Indeed, to give him his due, the Eurotunnel prospectus lists 40 banks from diverse Arabian, Japanese and African sources which are willing to provide £4 billion-worth of loans.
Lo and behold, times are getting difficult at Eurotunnel and we all know that. The various directors are lurching around: Lord Pennock is threatening to quit and Sir Nigel Broakes is up one minute, disenchanted the next and returns two days later. Clearly, there is turmoil and "crisis", to use the adjective on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph. Therefore, we understand that Eurotunnel is not shipshape and ready for action.
To borrow an additional £1 billion is most extraordinary. Above all, I should like the Minister to say from the Dispatch Box that, wherever else Eurotunnel finds £1 billion, it cannot be from a source which is prohibited by the treaty. The treaty makes it clear that no Government or public funds of any sort may be used for the project. The Bill and the concession agreement also make that clear. Therefore, the notion that Eurotunnel has studied the documents so little that it can even try to negotiate a £1 billion loan from a prohibited source strikes me as yet another example of the doubtful competence of its management.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does my hon. Friend agree that it is shameful for Eurotunnel to put huge advertisements in newspapers, saying:
it won't cost the taxpayer a penny. The whole project will be financed by private investment",
when at the same time it is negotiating a loan of £1 billion from the EIB, which is public money?

Mr. Aitken: Those advertisements prove the truth of the old adage that a fool and his money are soon parted. I understand that the advertisements are to be referred to the Advertising Standards Authority because they are inaccurate in almost every possible way. The only good news is that the albatross which hovers above the stormtossed waves is symbolic of Eurotunnel's general prospects.
The Government are doing their best to honour the clear pledge that there will be no subsidies, yet, simultaneously, Eurotunnel is issuing press releases and finalising negotiations with the EIB, which is a back-door source of public funds. That is a violation of the no-subsidy rule. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will take this early chance to knock that manoeuvre on the head. Basically, I welcome the new clause.

Mr. Roger Moate: I endorse the welcome given to the new clause because, like the majority of people, I welcome any underlining of the basic commitment to the pledge that no taxpayers' money will be invested in the project. That is more than just a Government pledge; it is a fundamental reason why the project has got so far. If it were not for the commitment that there would be no taxpayers' money invested in the project, we would not be debating the project today. The belief of the Government in that basic premise has carried the project thus far. That proposition would not necessarily commend itself to many Opposition Members, or, indeed, to passionate tunnellers on the Conservative Benches, of whom there are some.
The funds in the EIB are taxpayers' money and there can be no doubt about that. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will make it absolutely clear from the Front Bench today that there will be no fudging, no doubts and no ambiguity on this, that in furthering their commitment there will be no application to the EIB, and that such an application would be prohibited by the terms of the treaty.

Mr. David Mitchell: The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) welcomed the new clause and said that the advance toll payment might have been attractive to British Rail. He was worried, not that Government funds should reach Eurotunnel in that way, but that British Rail would he prevented from making a commercial investment. I can assure him that there is nothing to prevent British Rail from making a commercial investment. It cannot use Government funds for that purpose and it would have to have the approval of the Secretary of State before making such an investment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East, (Mr. Taylor) welcomed our speedy action to close the loophole. He recognised the Government's clear commitment to no Government funding and asked how we would prevent Euro-funding, particularly funding from the EIB. It is true that the concessionaires are considering raising loan finance through the EIB, but that is not Government investment by another name. EIB loans are not in themselves EEC-financed. The EIB is a secondary financial institution, the sources of its funds being through banks throughout the Community, not through Governments. We have made it clear that the prospect of any loans being guaranteed by member states, as is common with EIB funding, is unacceptable to both the British and French Governments. Any loan finance provided by the EIB will be on a purely commercial basis, supported not by the Government, but by the clearing banks in the member states. They, not the Government, will bear the contingent liability. There is no way that the Government will stand behind any EIB loan.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: rose—

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: One moment.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East quoted from an EEC document and, referring to medium-term loans on attractive terms, suggested that that meant subsidies. EIB loans are sometimes guaranteed by Governments, but not in this case.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: If the Minister is saying that the EIB gets its money from commercial banks, not Governments, why on earth on page 30 of the autumn statement did the Chancellor of the Exchequer explain that a reason why we were having to increase our net contributions to the EEC this year was a payment of £48 million to the EIB? Surely the Chancellor of the Exchequer is not a joint stock bank.
Is the offer of attractive fixed terms of interest based on the fact that the EIB gets its cash from member states or from loans guaranteed by member states and that this is a commercial operation? Surely the Minister cannot accept that it is all money from banks, when the loans are guaranteed by member states and the Government paid an additional £48 million this year, not last year or next year. What on earth is the Chancellor doing paying £48 million extra this year into the EIB?

Mr. Mitchell: I can reassure my hon. Friend on this matter. Some investments by the EIB involve a Government guarantee, but this is not one of them. Therefore, any contribution which the Chancellor may have made may have been in respect of other matters. There is no Government guarantee whatever for this EIB loan. Any risks, contingent or real, which may materialise

will fall on the banks that put up the money, not on the Government. 1 hope that my hon. Friend will find that reassuring.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Will the Minister give us a firm, clear, absolute guarantee that there will be no question of any member state, neither Britain nor France, covering possible exchange losses on these loans? As I understand it, that is built into the framework of the EIB.

Mr. Mitchell: I can give my hon. Friend that assurance; no such guarantees will be given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) expressed concern about Government amendment No. 4. That amendment ensures that it will be clear that the guarantees referred to in subsection (2) are similarly guarantees in respect of the concessionaires' borrowing. My hon. Friend also claims that Eurotunnel is now borrowing an extra £1 billion. He said that formerly Eurotunnel had sufficient funds, but it has now not been able to secure those funds from the initially proposed banking sources and, as a result, Eurotunnel has changed its plans. I am sorry, but my hon. Friend is yet again wrong. The European Investment Bank was always one of the potential sources of borrowing. Indeed, I had the pleasure of attending a reception not long ago given by the European Investment Bank at which this was a matter of considerable discussion.

Mr. Aitken: I have in my hand a copy of Eurotunnel's prospectus. On page 63 there is a list of the underwriting banks. There are 40 of these banks, but the European Investment Bank is not included. Its name is not in the list. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister will withdraw his aspersions about accuracy.

Mr. Mitchell: The European Investment Bank was on a list for a draft loan. The decision as to whether that draft loan should be firmed up into a firm commitment is under consideration.

Mr. Aitken: When a Minister has made a mistake, I believe that he must admit that he has made a mistake. The prospectus is quite clear and it lists the 40 banks. Of course, it is possible that other loans in addition to these are being considered. That was my very point. I was rather surprised that an additional £1 billion-worth of loans was being considered in addition to the £4 billion-worth of loans which are carefully itemised in the prospectus.
I am intrigued at the fact that my hon. Friend the Minister is now so willing to answer on behalf of Eurotunnel when at Question Time yesterday the Secretary of State refused point blank to answer any questions on behalf of Eurotunnel. There is a little confusion here.

Mr. Mitchell: It is not that I am answering on behalf of Eurotunnel. I am doing my best to try to help my hon. Friend, who has been misleading himself, and I know that he would not wish to do that.
The European Investment Bank is not referred to in the prospectus. All along, the European Investment Bank has been on the draft loan arrangement document. Moreover, as I have said, that was the subject of a good deal of discussion at a recent reception in the congenial surroundings of the Savoy hotel. We had a great deal of discussion on that subject.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause read a Second time, and added to the Bill.

New Clause 2

Industrial relations

'The operators of the tunnel shall be required to submit for approval to the Secretary of State a procedure agreement for the negotiation of disputes between the management and persons employed in the tunnel; and that agreement will require to include a form of contract for employees denying the right of industrial action and an appeal on unresolved grievances to an independent tribunal.'.— [Mr. Teddy Taylor.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
I hope that the Government will be able to make some concessions towards the principle of this new clause. It is basically quite simple. It suggests that there should be a procedure agreement for those employed in the tunnel which would ensure, first of all, that there was no entitlement to take strike action of a disruptive nature and, secondly, that there should be provision for
an appeal on unresolved grievances to an independent tribunal.
Hon. Members may ask what is it about the operation of the Channel tunnel that is different from other forms of transport, where there is no such requirement about strike action? There is a world of difference between the Channel tunnel and the ferries, railways, airports or any other form of transport. The organisation of a disruptive strike on transport such as rail, air or ships is a lengthy process. Those who use such forms of traffic have the opportunity to prepare for the disputes and there is an opportunity for action to be taken in the courts under the industrial relations legislation, if that is possible..
There is another major difference in that there are usually other alternative means of transport available. If the Channel tunnel project is successful, the tunnel will change that pattern dramatically. For a start, the operators of the tunnel claim that about 50 per cent. of cross-Channel traffic will have to go through the one artery. The second difference is that the alternative form of transport— the ferries— will undoubtedly be decimated if the tunnel goes ahead and attracts the business that it hopes to achieve. The third difference is that one or two key personnel working in the tunnel could bring traffic to a sudden halt by strike action or a work-to-rule.
However, it is fair to say that we must safeguard the interests of employees in the tunnel. How can that best be achieved? The best way to achieve that would be through a sensible procedure agreement such as we have with one or two of the essential public services. That would ensure that justice was given to the employees by means of binding arbitration, binding on employees and the operators.
If we do not have such an arrangement, a strike could have a devastating effect on trade between Britain and Europe. We know that there is considerable trade in both directions across the Channel although, as a representative of the United Kingdom Parliament, I find it sad that there is now a balance of payments deficit of more than £10

Channel Tunnel Bill 872 billion in manufacturing trade which would almost justify us having two tunnels in one direction and only one in the other direction.
A considerable volume of trade crosses the Channel. If there was a danger of that trade being disrupted by industrial action on the part of a small group of people, that could have a serious effect on the economy. I hope, therefore, that the Government will accept the principle of the clause and that the operators will take every possible step to ensure that a procedure agreement is made with the employees which would not permit the use of strike action, but which would allow appeal to binding arbitration if there was a genuine unresolved grievance. Without such an agreement there could be serious damage to this country if industrial action were taken. I hope that the Minister will accept the principle of the clause and at least undertake to discuss it with the promoters.

Mr. Snape: We all know the idea of industrial relations held by the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor). He believes that management should tell people what to do and the people at the receiving end should do it. That is his idea of an industrial relations system of negotiations. The Opposition are less than impressed with the new clause.
I can never understand the argument waged by the antitunnellers. On the one hand they claim that the Channel fixed link will be an economic disaster. They say that it will fail in no time at all. The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has been saying that in this Chamber and in various press releases for as long as I can remember or at least since June last year.
If these Jeremiahs and prophets of doom are correct, what are they worried about? Why should we be worried about industrial relations? If they are right and the project is to collapse, presumably the cross-Channel ferries will carry on with their cosy quasi-monopoly and things will continue as before. No doubt the hon. Member for Southend, East and the hon. Member for Thanet, South will be highly delighted at that. If they are wrong, however, they are trying to tie industrial relations for this one project in a way that industrial relations are not tied elsewhere in the United Kingdom.
The hon. Member for Southend, East will be aware that long-term discussions and negotiations are taking place between representatives of the railway unions and representatives of Eurotunnel. I would have thought that that was the place where such matters should fairly be conducted. Whatever else the Chamber is, it is not normally the place where we conclude industrial relations agreements on the part of private enterprise companies. Again, we can only imagine the indignation of the hon. Member for Southend, East who is normally incapable of passing the time of day without using at least three "disgracefuls" and one "minor catastrophe" if the Opposition proposed regular and binding arbitration on the nation's private sector. I would not have thought that such a proposition would commend itself to too many Conservative Members and certainly not, in normal circumstances, to the hon. Member for Southend, East.
Goodness knows what the hon. Member for Thanet, South would say. He would probably make the same speech once again, warning us all of doom, disaster and 40 days and 40 nights of flooding if the Minister rejects the clause. Although I do not know the views of the hon. Member for Thanet, South about the new clause, I can


imagine his outburst of ire if the Opposition proposed a no-strike deal and a system of binding arbitration among the highly paid technicians of TV-am, to mention but one private sector company in the United Kingdom. We would be told, quite rightly, that such matters are not negoitable on the Floor of the House and that we should keep our noses out of industrial relations between a private sector company and its employees. I can only take that undelivered advice from the hon. Member for Thanet, South and pass it with my compliments to his hon. Friend the Minister. I hope that the Minister, who does not fall too often for the blandishments of his hon. Friends the Members for Southend, East and Thanet, South, will kick this new clause as far into touch as it deserves, with the wholehearted support of the Opposition.

Mr. David Crouch: I wonder if I can make a small intervention in this private debate. I have always been in favour of the tunnel, knowing all its difficulties and disadvantages. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who has been attacking my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor), has painted him in black terms. He is not as black as that. My hon. Friend and I often disagree about matters in Europe and so on, but for once I felt that my hon. Friend was saying, "The tunnel is going to be built so we had better make a good job of it. Let us see that the trains run on time." Perhaps my hon. Friend is not the best advocate of how to avoid strikes in the middle of a tunnel, or even at the beginning or end of a tunnel. However, his new clause advances what I thought was a helpful suggestion.
Whether my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that it is possible to implement that suggestion is another matter. It might be difficult to implement. However, the aim and ideal of keeping the through passenger trains and through freight trains running on time and in good order is a good objective. I congratulate my hon. Friend on trying to help us through a difficult patch in the tunnel.

Dr. John Marek: I should say first that I am a sponsored member of the National Union of Railwaymen. I will not have to say that again, if I intervene later.
I hope that this mischievous clause is resisted by the House because it deals with something that should not be decided by the House. It should be decided by the management and employees concerned. There are no-strike agreements on occasions, but those occasions are when there has been agreement between the employees and the management. On a slightly different plane, although there are problems with widows' benefits, the police by and large are happy with their rates of pay. That is not precisely analogous because the job entails that the police cannot go on strike. However, they have an agreement with which the country is happy and with which the employees are happy. The armed services have the same type of agreement.
I hope that the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) will withdraw his new clause and seek to use his influence with the management, so that when the tunnel is running the management can come together with the employees and voluntarily agree a no-strike agreement. At the end of the day, in a free country, if we cannot voluntarily agree that and we insist on passing it in the House, I fear that we do not have a free country any more.

Mr. Aitken: The concept of no-strike agreements in essential services is gaining attention and perhaps support in the country and certainly on Conservative Benches. Therefore, the clause of my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) does not deserve to be so lightly dismissed by the Opposition.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) made what is a familiar point to me, about how it is sometimes necessary to argue for what will happen to the tunnel in the short term and produce one set of arguments and then to look ahead at what might happen in the longer term. I do not regard those two positions as contradictory in any way. My view has always been that the tunnel, in the short term, will go bankrupt and that at some later stage it will be rescued. In the course of the rescue it will be possible to operate the tunnel much more cheaply as a result of having written off the unfortunate equity investors' investment. Thereafter, with the capital costs written off, it will be possible to run the tunnel very competitively, although the process may be repeated more than once and there may be a second bankruptcy and a second rescue.
Once the tunnel is built, I believe that one day it will operate and succeed. That being the case, one should look beyond what I think will be the miserable next five years or so and ask what would be the conditions in which we would like to see the tunnel being run in the event of it becoming the main artery of our communications to Europe. If it is our main artery to Europe, we should treat it as a strategic investment.

Mr. Richard Caborn: The hon. Gentleman has suggested that capital should have the right to strike in the tunnel but that we should deny the people who work in the tunnel the right of industrial action if it should become necessary. The hon. Gentleman's scenario is that the tunnel will collapse in five years because there will be a strike of capital, but he is arguing that we now have to control the workers and make sure that they have no right to withdraw the only thing at their disposal, their labour.

Mr. Aitken: I have some sympathy with that position—at least I understand it—and I would certainly like to see any no-strike agreement being mutually negotiated.
The reality of the industrial relations suggestion is that at this moment it is somewhat far-fetched. Nevertheless, one should look forward to the day, 30 years or so from now, when the tunnel will have to be regarded as a key strategic interest of Britain when it may be our main arterial link with Europe. If that is the case, the idea that the same industrial relations rule can easily apply to that as apply to TVam or any other company that is operating in the private sector, is not realistic.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East may be ahead of his time. However, although much water may pass under the bridge and many bankruptcies within the tunnel may lie in between, if the tunnel is going to he as pivotal a link with Europe as the optimists predict, we should one day examine a clause such as this.

Mr. David Mitchell: The Government cannot accept this new clause, as both the prognosis that it implies and the remedy that it offers are mistaken. However, I am fascinated that my hon. Friend the Member for Southend,


East (Mr. Taylor) is anxious to put Eurotunnel in a preferential position compared to its competitors, which have to manage their industrial relations competently. My hon. Friend painted a lurid picture of the Channel tunnel being so successful and ruthless that it will drive the ferries out of business and control the straits of Dover. As a result, he envisages the trade and economic life of Britain being under constant threat of strangulation.
My hon. Friend's predictions of total dependence on the Channel tunnel are grossly exaggerated. Eurotunnel's forecasts, which the opponents of the project criticise as optimistic, suggest that the tunnel would capture one third of the cross-Channel unitised freight and less than 8 per cent. of the non-unitised freight. That means that 66 per cent. of the unitised freight and 92 per cent. of the non-unitised freight could continue to cross the Channel even if the tunnel service was disrupted. I am sure that those existing modes would rapidly take up any slack caused by the events to which my hon. Friend has referred.
It will be for Eurotunnel to decide whether to negotiate with its employees and their representatives suitable procedures for the settlement of disputes. It would be for the parties to consider whether any such agreement should preclude the right to take industrial action in return for independent arbitration. But if they do decide to include such a condition in their agreement, it would be because both sides are satisfied that it would be in their best interests. A no-strike and compulsory arbitration agreement, freely negotiated, would not require a clause in the Bill to permit it to operate. I hope that my hon. Friend will see the force of these arguments and withdraw his clause.
My hon. Friend claimed that the Channel tunnel was different because, with other forms of transport, there is a certitude of notice. Commuters from Waterloo last week were not especially conscious of the degree of notice they were given. I have recollections, as do other Members of this House, of ferry ports and even airports where strikes have occurred at very short notice. I do not think my hon. Friend has researched that part of his argument quite as thoroughly as he normally does.
I hope I will not damage the reputation in his party of the hon. Member for Wrexham (Dr. Marek) when I say that his argument that this sort of thing ought to be decided by management and employees is one with which I wholly agree. As to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) fantasising about multiple bankruptcies, the only things missing this time were the references to the Japanese, the Iranians and other middle east people who are going to put their money into this project and lose it.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I did not find the Minister's reply very convincing, but I think he is enormously underestimating the damage to the economy if, as we now hear, with the help of some public funding from the European Investment Bank, this project goes ahead and is disrupted by small groups. I am also sorry that he has not given even an indication to the promoters that he would personally favour a clause of this sort to protect the travelling public and reduce their inconvenience. However, it is quite clear that there is no support for this proposal in the House. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 3

DISPERSAL OF RAIL TRAFFIC

'(1) For the purpose of improving communications between all parts of the United Kingdom and France and before their scheduled works are opened for traffic it shall be the duty of the Railways Board to prepare a plan as to action to be taken (whether by way of executing works or carrying out of development by other persons or otherwise) for the purpose of securing that the proportion of cross-Channel passenger and freight traffic to be carried by rail is increased.

(2) The plan shall include, in particular, details of the Board's proposals:
(a) for the dispersal of rail traffic within Great Britain; and
(b) for the construction and operation of collection and distribution centresand inland clearance depots.

(3) The Board shall keep the particulars of the plan under review and shall review the plan at such periods as they consider appropriate.

(4) The Board shall publish the plan and any revision to the plan in such a manner as they consider best calculated to bring it to the attention of those who will be affected by its implementation.'.—[Mr. Snape.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
The House will be aware of the provisions of this clause, which places a duty on the British Railways Board
to prepare a plan as to action to be taken (whether by way of executing works or carrying out of development by other persons or otherwise) for the purpose of securing that the proportion of cross-Channel passenger and freight traffic to be carried by rail is increased.
The view put forward consistently by the Government is that this project provides the railway network in this country with an unparalleled opportunity. That is one of the reasons why, with a great many reservations, we on this side of the House have supported the project. Now comes the time for the Minister to confirm his good intentions by accepting the clause. We believe that the dispersal of rail traffic throughout the United Kingdom is vital.
None of us should be under any illusions about the decline of railway freight traffic in recent years which has been caused by various factors, some of which are well beyond the control of the British Railways Board. Over the past 15 to 20 years productivity within the road haulage industry has improved dramatically because of the motorway network and lorries being allowed to travel faster and particularly with some relaxation of lorry driving hours under EEC regulations.
That increased productivity and those developments led to a great and accelerating transfer of freight from rail to road. Surely the cross-Channel link will provide British Rail with the opportunity of reversing that trend. If we are to accept that the minimum economic distance to carry freight by rail, given the circumstances which I have outlined, is about 250 miles, then British Rail, for the first time, has the opportunity genuinely to compete with the road haulage industry because the cross-Channel link will plug in the British Rail network to the whole of Europe. But that opportunity will be thrown away without proper dispersal of rail traffic throughout the United Kingdom.
The Minister, although he expressed some pious hopes about the future, did not give the Standing Committee or my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) much cause for satisfaction. The first question we must ask is how and where this traffic will be dispersed.
Let us consider cross-Channel traffic which will originate in the Manchester area once the link opens. Over the past 15 or 20 years virtually all the rail freight depots in the Greater Manchester area have closed. There are no facilities that could be provided at the present time to enable people or industrialists to take advantage of the fixed link. Although the picture may be gloomy in Manchester, it is not quite as bad in other parts of the country, but investment is needed if British Rail is to take advantage of its inland competitive position.
In the Birmingham area, although Bescot sidings still exist, British Rail would need additional plans to develop those sidings in such a way that they are best able to take advantage of this traffic. There is still one freight liner terminal in the Birmingham area, a comparatively small one. What hope or financial inducements can the Minister of State hold out to British Rail that prior to the tunnel opening in 1993 the necessary investments will have been provided to the Lawley street freightliner depot in Birmingham to enable it to take advantage of that upsurge in container traffic?
Within the last 10 days, the British Rail subsidiary, Freightliner Ltd., announced the closure of eight freightliner terminals. Let us consider the example of an industrialist in the Humberside area who would wish to take advantage of the Channel fixed link. Because of the latest announcements, the Hull freightliner terminal will have long ceased to exist by 1993. What offer or inducement is the Minister prepared to offer to give those industrialists in Humberside an opportunity to use the rail freight facilities? Will those facilities be provided prior to the opening of the tunnel?
We .ask in this new clause that the board prepare and regularly update such plans so that we can see in the years up to 1993 exactly what provision is being made countrywide to take advantage of these opportunities. In Standing Committee we talked about measures that have been taken in northern France. My hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central compared the number of inland clearance points in France and Germany with those in the United Kingdom. He talked about France having 240 and Germany having 250 such points, yet he said that the British criterion for the creation of those inland clearance points is a minimum of 30,000 customs entries per hour.

Mr. Andrew Rowe: The hon. Member may remember that in Standing Committee I made the point, which I think is worth repeating, that it seems entirely sensible that industrialists and others, where they thought it worthwhile, should be allowed to contract for the necessary customs clearance services, and if they did not reach the Government's pre-arranged patterns they should be allowed to buy in the additional ones if they felt it was to their profit to do so.

8 pm

Mr. Snape: Unlike his hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale), who is presumably saving his speech for later, the points made by the hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) are normally worth repeating. In the case of the hon. Member for Thanet, North, even though they are not worth repeating, he repeats them anyway. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will get a more sympathetic response from the Minister of State than the one that he got in Standing Committee. I know that my

hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central, if he catches Mr. Speaker's eye, will say that the provision of customs facilities and proper rail freight facilities are vital if the potential for British Rail from this project is to be realised. It will not do to say that we should leave it to market forces or until 1993.
We are the first to concede that the road transport network is more flexible than rail. It runs from door to door and it is possible within the United Kingdom to load a piece of freight on to a lorry and take it to its destination without the sort of transhipment that would be necessary if such a load were taken by rail. Surely it is necessary to provide facilities a long time before 1993. We are not saying in the new clause that rail freight facilities should be provided full scale from one end of Britain to the other. I have already said that in some parts of the country work could take place right now—[Interruption.] As my hon. Friend reminds me, it would be helpful to stop the closure of freightliner depots. That is happening at a time when we are talking about a massive expansion in rail freight as a result of the fixed link. It is vital that the work takes place a long time before the tunnel opens in 1993.
At the conclusion of our debate in Standing Committee the Minister of State said:
no decisions are needed until nearer the opening of the tunnel".— [Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1987; c. 575.]
We do not accept that, and that is why we have tabled the new clause. Decisions taken now will have an enormous impact on rail freight carriers into the 1990s. If British Rail is not allowed to prepare adequately by not being given the finance to enable it to take advantage of the expected upsurge in rail freight traffic arising from the fixed link, the competitive advantage of road haulage will be maintained into the 1990s. We will see an ever increasing number of heavy goods vehicles—juggernaut lorries—on our roads and will experience the consequent environmental problems.
Given the scale of this project, it would be folly not to provide adequate facilities to enable British Rail to take advantage of the competitive boost that the provision of the fixed link will give it. For those and other reasons, I hope that the Minister of State, who made some sympathetic noises in Committee, will go a little further and will accept the new clause.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I strongly support the new clause. We are told in the Eurotunnel briefing papers about the tunnel that in the 10 years from 1975 to 1985 freight traffic increased from 10 million tonnes to 23 million tonnes. As the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly says, this month's edition of Modern Railways shows a picture of the closing of the freight. terminal at Dudley. I think it was Dudley, but perhaps the hon. Gentleman can confirm that. We now have fewer than 20 freight terminals and the figure may be as low as 12. That is daft at a time when we are all hoping and predicting that: the tunnel will result in an uplift in freight from many parts of the United Kingdom and will present an opportunity to get into France, Germany and Italy.
One of the most ridiculous things I have ever seen was the withdrawal of the siding into Nine Elms. Nine Elms is the new Covent Garden and all the produce coming there could come by rail. Lettuce, tomatoes and cucumbers come from Spain, and at one time there was a huge import of South African oranges into Southampton. The obvious thing to do is to get that produce straight into


Nine Elms but all the sidings have been removed. Will the same thing be done in other places, and will we be told in four or five years' time, when there is a demand for sidings to be put back in such places as Hull, Sheffield and Manchester, that it would cost millions of pounds to do it and that it cannot be done because of that high cost and an inadequate subsidy?
I accept that for some years Government policy has been to help in the construction of new sidings in various parts of Britain. It would be daft to allow British Rail to continue the process of closing freightliner terminals and sidings. We should at least be putting them into mothballs to make sure that we do not cause any more damage until we have seen what can be picked up when the tunnel is built.

Mr. Roger King: Having listened to the speeches by the hon. Members for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) and for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross), it seems that they have little confidence in the present British Rail management. They suggest that it is necessary to enshrine in the Bill the necessity to prepare a plan. Presumably that plan will do that which British Rail would normally do anyway to further the commercial interests of the business that it operates.
There is no evidence to show that the British Rail management is not aware of the opportunities that are likely to arise from the Channel tunnel. On the contrary, in conversations with British Rail, in correspondence and in articles that I have read, the management is well aware of the tremendous opportunities that the link will present for the freight system of British Rail.
The problem presently worrying the industry is that the freightliner system has to operate within the parameters of the United Kingdom and that none of the train runs is ever long enough to justify the amount of handling of the containers from the factory on to the train and at the delivery point. Other than by dedicated train loads from factory to factory it is probably far quicker to ship them by road. Most economists suggest that the minimum train run required is 250 miles and very few routes in Britain give that opportunity. The tunnel link will open up thousands of miles, allowing rail freight to. be taken throughout Europe.
The dispersal of commercial traffic is best left to the commercial aspects of the market. There is no way in which the British Rail board, in some so-called plan, can go to Nissan in Sunderland and say, "Look, the plan that Parliament has asked us to put into effect requires us to ascertain now whether we can carry your cars in 1993 into the European market." Nissan would say, "There is no chance. We are not interested and not convinced. What are the costs? At the moment we have our own system of shipping the cars direct from Newcastle across to the Continent." The problems that face the management of British Rail in trying to work year by year to a plan like that are immense. It would tie up an army of bureaucrats and administrators trying to decide who wanted a siding here or a siding there.
We have heard that some freightliner depots have been closed. Certainly dedicated freightliner depots have been closed but, as we all know, it is relatively easy to construct or re-install a depot with the aid of a modest crane. A simple rail link can be put into any factory at a small

additional cost in seven or eight years' time. It does not necessitate the tying up of vast amounts of capital and resources and the installation of dedicated terminals now on the offchance that at some time in the mid-1990s there will be traffic for them.

Mr. Stuart Holland: Quite apart from whether Nissan would seriously be prepared to consider alternative costs for transport by rail rather than by sea, which is suggested by the way that Nissan plans ahead on its production location decisions worldwide, is the hon. Gentleman not aware that the French railways also plan and have forms of planning agreement and a long-term planning perspective? Will we have planning and intervention on one side of the Channel tunnel and free market forces on the other? If we have, God help us, because the French will sweep the market.

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman has made an interesting comparison between the way that the French do things and the way that we are trying to do things. Eventually one will have to decide who gets the better value for the money that is being invested. I have no evidence to suggest that French railways handle their freight better than the United Kingdom, except that they have the opportunity of a European network, whereas we have the liability of a branch line network. Once we have tapped the resources that the Channel link will give us, the commercial aspect of a British Rail freight operation will probably lick the pants off any French state system, which will become bogged down in its own bureaucracy, as we have seen with the airlines today. If one compares our own free enterprise airlines with the state systems in Europe, it will be seen that one receives a better service from our airlines because they respond better to the initiatives in the market place.

Mr. Snape: Amidst the comic cuts of the speech of the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King)— who represents an area which is an example of the collapse of private enterprise and which has had to be rescued by the state— is he aware that to talk such appalling claptrap underlines the fact that the hon. Member knows as much about running a railway system as I do about who writes his speeches?

Mr. King: The hon. Gentleman does not know the west midlands very well. I assume that he is referring to the car industry. If he is referring to Jaguar, Land Rover and Freight Rover, he will see that they are profitable. One of those companies has been privatised and the others are doing nicely. There is a little local difficulty in Longbridge, but we will put that right in the not too distant future.
In my constituency we have a car factory that is turning out thousands of cars per year with a growing expectation in the European market. That factory is available to take on the opportunities given by a dedicated rail system that will enable goods to leave the Longbridge works and be within the continent of Europe within the day. We readily welcome that opportunity, but it does not need the British Rail Board to come along to Longbridge and say that they want to plan something in 1993—it is happening now because it is good commercial sense. That is the sort of system that we want. As a result of the opportunities that a commercially orientated rail network can bring, which British Rail can readily afford, there is no reason why the system should not be privatised and why we should not have Rail Freight plc so that it can freely adapt and take on the opportunities on offer.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I am becoming more and more fascinated by the hon. Gentleman's speech with every sentence that he utters. What he is suggesting, if I have understood him, is that normal capitalist enterprises do not plan their investment as far ahead as 1993. If he is right, it explains why the economy of Britain is in such a bloody mess.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): Order. I must reproach the hon. Gentleman for the crudeness of his language. Plain language is not quite the same thing as coarse language.

Mr. Hughes: I apologise for using that word, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and, in the interestes of the delicacy of the House, I shall not repeat it and say that that is why the country is in such a filthy state.

Mr. King: I remember that when I was deciding what political creed to follow in the early 1960s my views were prejudiced by a so-called national plan, which seemed to me to set the country on a route to complete disaster because it confined the country to a narrow corridor of development. Since then, all kinds of plans which spread themselves over a decade or so have not appealed to me in the slightest. Of course commercial businesses plan ahead on a 12-month and two-year cycle and indeed a five-year cycle. What this amendment is suggesting is that it is a commitment, a part of the Bill. It should be left to the rail board to draw up its own confidential commercial plan, of which I am sure it is quite capable without the necessity of Parliament having to tell it what to do.

Mr. Caborn: The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) underlines the position with regard to the present Administration and their lack of understanding of what industry wants. The chamber of commerce in Sheffield, along with the local authority, has put its money where its mouth is and tried to devise a scheme or argument as to why we should have inland customs clearance, and we have brought in independent assessment of that situation.
The argument of the chamber of commerce is that people looking to the north of England for investment will look at transport infrastructure as a major element for five, six, seven or eight years in the future. That is extremely important. That is not the flippant speech of some cowboys; serious consideration has been given to it.
The north-south divide has been clearly quantified in the last few weeks. There is genuine and serious concern that the Channel tunnel will bring resources down into the south-east. The Select Committee on Transport looked at that national impact. Its first report on the Channel link was assessed in 1985 and 1986. The minutes of proceedings say in paragraph 121:
It has been argued that a fixed link might induce a further drain of economic activity from already distressed parts of the Midlands and the North. In addition, some concern has been expressed that owing to its nearness to continental markets and to French Government and EEC assistance, the Pas de Calais region might benefit unduly. The National Union of Marine, Aviation and Shipping Transport Officers (NUMAST) has suggested that if a fixed link does encourage investment in manufacturing it will be in France rather than the UK. 'An industrialist who wishes to establish a manufacturing capacity to serve the north-west European market and is faced with a choice of regional incentives from northern England and Scotland and from northern France is much more likely to choose the latter and to treat the UK

market as peripheral' … the Committee feels it is essential that the UK derives an equal benefit from the link and stresses the need to ensure that there is no unfair discrimination in favour of industry or employment in France.
As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) has been saying, we went into some detail in Committee. The French are geared up in northern France, not just in transport infrastructure, but in industrial infrastructure and educational resources. Many hundreds of millions of pounds are being spent in that area to make it attractive to industrialists in their long-term planning. That is very serious for the north of England.
It is unfortunate that the way in which the Channel Tunnel Bill has been discussed does not allow us to get any co-ordination across Government Departments— the Department of Transport, the Department of Trade and Industry, the Home Office and so on. The French regional and national councils, the PAL, are co-ordinating their effort to extract the maximum benefits for northern France. We have no like bodies in the United Kingdom. so this narrow Bill has considerable economic and industrial impact upon the United Kingdom.
One example is inland customs clearance. I put it into the context of the reply that I received from the Minister in Standing Committee:
If the railways board believes that it can generate traffic that will justify those facilities it is up to it to set out the facts and make the case to the customs authorities."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 15 January 1987; c. 575.]
Under the criteria laid down by the customs—a Home Office responsibility— it has first of all to show that there will be about 30,000 entries per annum into that particular depot. British Rail's freight organisation tells us that that is about 3 tonnes a wagonload and that that will be classed as an entry.
The hon. Member for Mid-Kent (Mr. Rowe) talked earlier about getting a number of industrialists together to try to develop enough traffic to justify a depot. We are talking about 1 million tonnes of freight having to go through a depot before the criteria laid down by her Majesty's Customs are met. France and Germany look at the matter from a different point of view. They ask whether industry, the community and the development in certain areas require such a depot. They do not have the bureaucratic approach of saying, "We will not put one there until you can bring in that level of freight". It is impossible to meet the criterion of 1 million tonnes a year.
In Committee, the Minister said that the customs authority would require proof. The ground rules laid down for BR are well-nigh impossible. That is the point that we were making to the Secretary of State, yet that has been compounded with the closure of eight depots— in Aberdeen, Dundee, Edinburgh, Newcastle, Hull, Manchester, Nottingham and Swansea. I got that information from an article in the Yorkshire Post on 10 January. We are asking for a transport infrastructure which will enable freight to be moved much more effectively by having it cleared at the source of production—I argued in Committee that there should be one in south Yorkshire— yet that is becoming increasingly more difficult.
We must also consider the criteria under which BR is having to work. It must show clearly the return on capital employed. As I said earlier, we have done a feasibility study on that. We are talking about expenditure of about £1.5 million to £2 million in order to put that depot in south Yorkshire. Do we wait to make that investment until


the Channel tunnel has been opened, or do we say that we shall have a network of inland customs clearance depots and so should have that up-front expenditure? If we do not, it will be catch 22. Investors will not come to the industrial north if it does not have a transport infrastruture to move the goods away quickly to the European markets. That is serious.
To discuss that within the narrow concept of the railways and BR's decision would be to deny British industry an opportunity to have some say in its regeneration. That is why subsection (4) is important. It says:
The Board shall publish a plan and any revision to the plan in such a manner as they consider best calculated to bring it to the attention of those who will be affected by its implementation.
That is important, because it is not only BR that is affected. There will be an impact on industry. There may be major benefits for industry, but if industry is not allowed to be part of the discussions and to put forward its ideas to BR, an opportunity will be missed.
I know that you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and I might be in some conflict on this. The areas that we represent are in close proximity and I know that you have received some overtures about an inland customs clearance depot for your area. Nevertheless. I hope that, in the light of the Minister's comments in Committee and the comments made in the Select Committee, the Minister will now be able to accept the new clause. It takes cognisance of his reply in Committee about the responsibility of BR. He said that BR was undertaking a survey, and that is welcome. But some direction at least should be written into the Bill. At the end of the day, this is not just a matter for BR. Many people, particularly in the north of England, first, will want to contribute to the report, and, secondly, hope that they will be able to influence its direction.
The new clause has been drafted to reflect the points made by the Minister in Committee and adds that there will be an ongoing dialogue, that the report will be published and will be open for debate and comment. To that extent, it could be made into a much more meaningful exercise than the one described in Committee, which was left solely to British Rail's criteria.

Mr. Stuart Holland: I support new clause 3 and I should like to tell you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, and the House why. New clause 3 says that British Rail should publish a plan and bring it to the attention of those who will be affected by its implementation. It is clear that, since we first heard of the Bill, British Rail has done no research into the probable social, environmental or planning effects of the Channel tunnel. [Interruption.] It is interesting that the Minister should laugh at that. If it has, as a Member of Parliament for a constituency that is directly affected, may I have access to the planning that has been done? The fact that the Minister can laugh raises some interesting questions concerning, for example, consultation, not only with the local community but also with hon. Members. Such issues are not simply a matter of courtesy but come near to the question of the privilege of hon. Members.
I was at a conference on the dispersal of Channel tunnel traffic in Birmingham on 21 January with a Mr. Southgate, a manager of British Rail who is responsible for the Channel tunnel project. Although I was on the platform with Mr. Southgate, he neglected to tell me—I

certainly was not told in writing before it occurred—that two days later BR would open an exhibition at Waterloo containing plans for the terminal and its elevation and design at Waterloo on which I have put questions time and again to the Minister in the House. I have asked for the precise specification, when we could see the plans and the elevation and how it works. The Minister, who is smiling again, said that that was a matter for British Rail, not for him.
As a local Member of Parliament, I was not even informed of that exhibition by British Rail, despite the advantage that Mr. Southgate had of meeting me on 21 January. I learned the day before the exhibition opened from Thames Television, which telephoned me to ask what I thought about the new plans and the new model for a terminal at Waterloo which was to be opened the next day. The following morning I had a prior commitment, again to be in Birmingham, and I could not be at BR's opening of the plans for the terminal at Waterloo. I put it to Thames Television that as far as I was aware I had not even received an invitation to view the model or its specifications.
Indeed, not only did I not receive an invitation in advance, but I received a letter today dated 26 January from a Mr. P. C. Trewen, the parliamentary affairs manager of the BR Board. Under the heading "British Rail and the Channel Tunnel Waterloo International Terminal", it says:
As you may know British Rail has opened an Information Centre at Waterloo Station … The Centre is open from … I thought you would like to know of this
development. You are very welcome to visit the Centre.
That exhibition, containing information on the terminal at Waterloo on which I had put questions to Ministers without receiving a response, opened on 23 January. The invitation was sent to me on 26 January.
This is not a small or chiding matter. It is, in my view, symptomatic of the whole way in which Ministers have been handling the issue of this Bill and its passage through the House. The reason that the managers of British Rail can actually get away with behaviour of this kind towards elected Members of Parliament, or have done so far, is precisely the attitude that Ministers have towards key questions which have been put on this Bill and which they have not answered on the Floor of this House.
8.30 pm
For example, consultation, which is of course referred to in new clause 3, is covered by the words
To bring it to the attention of those who will be affected by its implementation"—
that is, the implementation of a plan.
On the matter of consultation, neither British Rail nor the Government have initiated any proper consultation with the local community in Waterloo, despite the fact that this is supposed to include a flagship terminal for the Channel tunnel traffic. The public consultation with British Rail was initiated by residents in 1981 and aided by Lambeth council in 1983. Its findings have been totally ignored by British Rail in its recent statement on the Channel tunnel terminal at Waterloo. In fact, the siting of a terminal at Waterloo would have major and potentially devastating consequences on the local area and should have been the subject of a major planning inquiry. A plan in that sense already exists—a community development


plan for the area. Normally, whether this were a third London airport or a Sizewell reactor, there would be a public inquiry into its implications.
The kind of traffic throughput which we are likely to get at Waterloo has been estimated to be equivalent to that at Gatwick airport. In Committee on this Bill we had a day and a half for local community groups to give their evidence, not much more than half a day for Lambeth council to give its evidence and no answer from Ministers to some of the key questions which have been raised. For example, a case has been made by Lambeth council and the GLC against the siting of a terminal at Waterloo. This charged that British Rail had in fact done no detailed costings of alternative sites. I stand by that allegation. If British Rail has done any detailed costing of alternative sites, we have not seen the figures.
Last year, for example, BR put out a general statement asking, "Why is Waterloo favoured?" In the question and answer format, it said in its answer:
There is a clear commercial value in a single city centre terminal with good connections to other rail routes and other modes of internal transport.
Let us just take that point. The underground connections from Waterloo to the rest of the underground network are not especially good. They happen to be far better from Victoria, which goes straight through to some of the key stations to the north via the Victoria line. That is one reason why the Victoria line was built.
We have been told, for example, that the Bakerloo line can easily accommodate the traffic likely to be generated by the additional passengers coming from Waterloo.

Dr. Marek: I hate to intervene in my hon. Friend's argument, but he must realise that the Victoria underground line is almost running to capacity at the moment.

Mr. Holland: I am most indebted to my hon. Friend for telling me that the Victoria line is running at full capacity at present. That is one reason why I believe that LRT has proposals to increase its capacity. What I presume it is not aware of is that there has been an admission by David Baylis, who is a London Regional Transport board member and planner, that the Bakerloo line extension proposed recently through the Elephant and Bricklayers Arms to West Croydon will itself now be in question because of the take-up of capacity on the Bakerloo line by bringing international traffic to Waterloo. This should he of some interest to those in south London who have recently been given the impression that there would be an extension of the Bakerloo line. The new Bakerloo line is very unlikely to go ahead if Waterloo is the exclusive flagship terminal in London.
This is a major transport and planning policy issue, which has not been addressed by Ministers, not brought by them to the Floor of the House. It is one of very great significance, to which I shall shortly return.
In other respects— for example, in terms of the costing of Waterloo—British Rail said last year:
Victoria Station was carefully evaluated as the location for the international terminal but has been rejected on a number of counts.
These include allegedly limiting the number of platforms which can be accommodated, road access, and so forth.
What is the comparative cost between the two options?
It claims:

The Waterloo development will cost in the order of £45 million. Victoria, a minimal proposal, would cost £7 million, while a proposal with four platforms would cost £16 to £17 millions and one with five platforms up to £27 millions.
In the exhibition at Waterloo for the public in general there are none of these nuances of figures, saying that Victoria, for example, would cost only £16 million more than Waterloo. Rather, there is the broad assertion that Victoria would cost 50 per cent. more than Waterloo. It would be very interesting to have a discussion about these matters. Unfortunately, we are in no position to challenge these figures unless we know how the figures themselves are composed. What is the premise for those figures? What are the actual detailed costings? What are the implications, for example, having some Channel tunnel traffic accommodated at Waterloo and some Channel tunnel traffic accommodated at Victoria? Why should it not be possible to get on a train at the Gare du Nord, or in Brussels, and know that the train on the hour is going to Waterloo and the train at quarter past the hour is going to Victoria and alternating termini? That would be likely to increase the effectiveness of Channel tunnel traffic, for the very simple reason that a unique load capacity at Waterloo would limit the frequency of the service.
British Rail again told us that it had examined other sites running through Kensington Olympia, West Brompton, Shepherds Bush, Docklands, Warwick road, London Bridge, Blackfriars, Cannon street, Holborn Viaduct and Bricklayers Arms. It was only today, in taking up the invitation in this letter to view the exhibition, that I came to Waterloo station; there, lo and behold, we have a ranking of stations in meeting criteria as the terminus for Channel tunnel traffic. On the first criterion, convenience for central London and the City, Waterloo gets a tick, Victoria gets a tick, Olympia gets a cross. On the second, access from the terminal to other BR routes, they all rate a tick. On the third, additional capacity at the existing station, we then move into three evaluative categories of good, medium and poor. On additional capacity, Waterloo gets "good", while Victoria and Olympia get "medium".
On the fourth criterion—that of additional capacity on approach routes— Waterloo comes out as good, Victoria medium and Olympia good. All three meet the fifth criterion, that of the feasibility of 400m platforms, as they do the sixth, space for four or five Channel tunnel platforms. In the seventh test— of 500 sq m for a passenger terminal—Waterloo and Victoria pass with a tick, but Olympia gets a cross. They all gets ticks in the eighth—other direct rail access or egress. On the ninth— other direct rail access or egress for public transport— Waterloo is rated good, Victoria medium and Olympia poor. They all get ticks on the tenth criterion. that of accessibility to the North Pole maintenance depot— which all railway enthusiasts appreciate is not located where it appears to be. On the 11 th point— no disruption to existing commuter traffic— there are straight ticks for each station.
The 12th point— infrastructure costs— indexed Waterloo at 100, Victoria at 150 and Olympia as "not available". Where is the costing for Olympia? Why has it not been done? For the whole range of other stations that British Rail suggested would be considered, there was no evaluation of the feasibility of their use in dispersed Channel traffic. Indeed, there is no quantification of the feasibility of one station rather than another. Item No. 9,


which refers to road public transport access or egress, concludes that the argument is over because British Rail has judged that one proposal is good, one medium and one poor; but that is to deny the very principle of evaluating traffic congestion caused by additional traffic to individual stations.
The traffic estimates are very interesting. British Rail has been very generous, not only by informing me of an exhibition that would have answered, in principle, some of the questions that Ministers would not answer, but in using technicolor publicity— suitably in the colours of France—to launch a campaign against Lambeth council. British Rail does not allow Lambeth council space in Waterloo station to make its case against the Channel tunnel flagship terminus at Waterloo. Nor has it allowed community groups to put their case against the exclusive use of Waterloo as a Channel tunnel terminus.
I stress that both Lambeth council and the community groups have been responsible by accepting the premise that there will be a Channel tunnel fixed link, and in addressing themselves to the issue of where the traffic should go—whether there should be a single terminus or a dispersal outlet.

Mr. Snape: rose—

Mr. Holland: I shall give way to my hon. Friend, who I am sure will support me.

Mr. Snape: As ever, I am always delighted to support my hon. Friend. Perhaps he would give us a demonstration of Lambeth council's impartiality towards the project by telling the House the contents of a leaflet that I understand went through many letter boxes in Lambeth— and, indeed, as far afield as Streatham—detailing on the one hand the advantage of the Channel tunnel and on the other using three pages to describe the disadvantages of the project.

Mr. Holland: It was a very entertaining leaflet, which amused at least one member of the Select Committee when he visited Waterloo. I regret to say that my hon. Friend is wrong—it is not a Lambeth council leaflet, but one produced by an association of Waterloo groups of tenants. They said—quite rightly—that there will be a single main gain from a Channel fixed link, that of cheaper and faster access to the Continent, whether for freight or passengers. There would be considerable disadvantages to the community should there be a flagship terminus at Waterloo rather than a dispersal of traffic both within London and throughout the country.
8.45 pm
On traffic estimates, British Rail held discussions by convening a meeting and taking questions as a substitute for a public inquiry. During those discussions, Channel tunnel traffic was estimated at 13·5 million passengers. However, on another occasion British Rail's estimate of the upper range of passenger traffic likely to be generated rose to 22 million.
British Rail's "Test your knowledge of key facts and figures about the Waterloo international terminus", asks whether the number of passengers using Waterloo station each year will rise by 2003—it forgot to say that that was anno domini rather than an absolute figure—by 7 million, 13 million or 20 million. It states that the answer

is 13 million—apparently quite unlike the claims of 15 million or 20 million. The reality is that the upper figure of more than 20 million has been used not only by British Rail but by the tunnel promoters to help float the issue to finance their bid. Thirteen million is an interesting figure because it is not the figure consistently used by British Rail, which has used a figure of 13·5 million on several occasions.
I note that the Minister is absolutely riveted and is about to wet his throat so that he can reply in detail to all my points. The problem is that the differences in the figures are very significant. Anything up to about 20 million passengers means at least 4 million additional vehicles per year, up to 70,000 buses, 3 million taxis and 1 million private cars. Where will they go?
There are important and interesting implications in terms of Waterloo's situation. I am sure that the House will appreciate and enjoy the visual aid that I am offering to support my analysis. However, better than that, most hon. Members are familiar with Waterloo station. Certainly the Minister is familiar because he visited Waterloo station, and we were glad that he did so. He saw that, from the exit to Waterloo east, on the road by the main concourse going to York road, British Rail is planning three-way traffic, whereas currently there is only one-way traffic and a taxi park, with room for the parking of passenger cars. Indeed, I think that the Minister was amazed. He spoke on camera directly afterwards and said that British Rail had not thought through the problem. Rather than having a mystical union with market forces— or the market mythology suggested by the hon. Member for Northfield—British Rail had not thought about the congestion that would be caused by 70,000 buses.
Even if we are generous and refer to only two thirds of the higher passenger traffic estimates, and therefore to two thirds of the number of buses, that is still an additional 48,000 buses per year. Will they be tour operator buses? Will tour operators be allowed to use the link with passenger traffic at Waterloo station?

Mr. Rowe: May I inject some flexibility by suggesting that the Polytechnic of the South Bank might be moved to Kent? Kent does not have a polytechnic, but it should have one. London already has seven polytechnics. If the Polytechnic of the South Bank were moved to Kent, there would be opportunities to reshuffle a great deal of the traffic engendered—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Gentleman reads the new clause, he will realise that it refers to the dispersal of rail traffic and the construction of collection and distribution centres and inland clearance depots. I find it difficult to reconcile that with the relocation of a technical college.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) referred to buses, and I was suggesting a possible place where those buses might lurk.

Mr. Holland: The hon. Gentleman reminds me of a Member of the House of Lords, who dreamed one night that he was speaking there, and woke up to find that he was. The hon. Gentleman's intervention has come at the wrong stage of the debate. It is a little outside the scope of the new clause to connect parking buses and resiting a polytechnic in Kent with the generation of traffic at Waterloo.
However, the problem of where buses will go or where private cars will be parked at Waterloo is a major issue. Where can such vehicles put down and pick up traffic at Waterloo? That problem has not been addressed. There is a car park for up to 140 cars and a new car park has been planned. However, how many cars are likely to have access to or egress from the roads around Waterloo that are already substantially congested?
I am sure you will be riveted to know, Mr. Deputy Speaker, that this afternoon, at 1.50 pm precisely, I went to the Waterloo area to have the pleasure of examining the exhibition that claimed to give the answers to the questions that the Minister did not give. In coming up to Waterloo from the Baylis road area and going up to the road behind Waterloo, I counted 52 taxis in a queue. That represents a substantial distance—it stretched from the front of the station concourse where people normally catch cabs at Waterloo, right down the side of the station and two thirds of the way along it past one of the sharpest hairpin bends to have escaped alpine history. That bend will take three lanes of traffic if the proposal goes ahead.
On those grounds alone, there can be no way in which Waterloo is likely to be able to accommodate the additional traffic that will be generated by the Channel tunnel fixed link. It is of priority and importance that that traffic should be dispersed. That dispersal should be aimed not only to take traffic beyond London—I shall make some further comments on that shortly— but also to disperse it within London between the different stations. A single terminal at Waterloo will represent a built-in bottleneck.
To stress that argument, I should like to draw attention to the kind of games that British Rail plays with its figures. In the technicolor question and answer sheet, we are told to be confident that Lambeth has got its figures wrong but British Rail has not got its figures right. But those figures are not consistent.
Last year, British Rail assured us that on a normal weekday, outside the domestic rail passenger holiday period of July and August, there will be an additional 21,000 international train passengers a day using Waterloo. Now we are told that there will be an additional 38,000 passengers using Waterloo. You do not have to be a mathematical genius, Mr. Deputy Speaker, although you may well be, to appreciate that the difference between 21,000 and 38,000 is very nearly 100 per cent. British Rail has doubled the estimate of the number of passengers who will use Waterloo.
Then comes the placebo effect on British Rail's figures. It is stated that, in comparison to the total number of passengers using Waterloo in the 1950s and 1960s, the proposed increase in passengers represents a mere 1 per cent. extra. I ask you, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to retain in your mind that figure of 1 per cent. extra traffic. That figure has all the charm—not only the moderation—of almost infinitesimal regression. That 1 per cent. extra is so small that it suggests no one should bother about it.
That was the attitude adopted by British Rail. In practice, British Rail did not bother. It did not make any effective estimate of additional traffic and congestion costs in the Waterloo area. Instead, British Rail studied the Gibbs report. The figure given in that report of passengers using Waterloo was not 13 million or even the higher figure of 22 million, but 6 million. The Gibbs report came to the conclusion that there would be no significant additional congestion at Waterloo and therefore British

Rail also decided that there would be no significant additional congestion. British Rail had the nerve to cite findings and studies by Lambeth and the Greater London council concerning congestion that were based on the Gibbs report analysis of 6 million passengers and not the current British Rail figure of some 13 million passengers.
It gets even more interesting. We are now told that the highest forecast for annual day traffic will be about 13.6 million by the year 2003. Waterloo station has display boards that state that, on average, 1,272 domestic trains used Waterloo in 1978. The average number in 1985 was 1,079. Even with the additional number of trains generated by the Channel tunnel programme, there will be only between 98 and 130 international trains using Waterloo in the year 2003. Those figures are displayed in large columns on the display boards for anybody who cannot easily calculate the difference between those figures. It is clear that the difference between 1,079 and 1,272 is more than 130.
I was rather inquisitive about those figures, which other people consider are purely factual. I discovered that the range figure between 98 and 130 trains using the station diverges substantially—the range is so wide—because two estimates are involved. One is British Rail's estimate and the other is the Eurotunnel estimate.
I asked British Rail what was the average number of weekday passengers going through Waterloo in the peak period from March to October. Those figures have also been put up on the display board by British Rail. In fact, British Rail does not put the precise figures on the board; it uses ratios. However, I have checked the figures with Nick Alexander of British Rail— he was most co operative on the phone this afternoon, and I pay him credit. The figures show that the peak passenger use of Waterloo in any post-war year with 204,000 passengers was in 1971. I asked on what foundation the range of figures at Waterloo had been based, because the words on the display board refer to
Average weekday passengers through Waterloo at the peak, March to October".
The hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has talked about misleading advertisements by Eurotunnel., but I think he should be talking about misleading advertising by British Rail at Waterloo station. I hope that the Minister will intervene to correct the misleading information. I found out to my surprise that the figures, rather than for average weekday passengers in the peak months of March to October, were sample figures for a peak Saturday in August. British Rail is not using an average monthly figure.
If one uses the figures of annual flow, instead of the dramatic collapse in traffic using Waterloo—

Dr. Marek: rose—

Mr. David Mitchell: There are peaks of intercontinental traffic at the weekends. The greatest pressure of travel on British Rail Eurotunnel trains is likely to occur on Saturdays. It is therefore appropriate for British Rail to consider how that peak capacity on Saturdays can be handled.

9 pm

Mr. Holland: I would not want to deter the Minister from supporting the new clause, although I am sure that nothing I say will persuade him. This is precisely the matter that I want to address. I am well aware of that point. I discussed it with British Rail.
One cannot compare chalk with cheese. What are the comparisons about which the Minister is talking? He is talking about peak tourist traffic in August, but is he also talking about current British Rail traffic? One cannot decide how future traffic will be generated by comparing a rail service that has to go by sea across the Channel with Channel tunnel traffic. In making that comparison, one is undermining the basis of the whole case for the Channel study. As Mr. Alexander said to me on the telephone today, "You know how most market forecasts are done— stick up a wet finger." That is almost what is happening. I appreciate British Rail's difficulties in evaluating market forecasts. I appreciate that the Minister may feel that he is seriously misled by a wet finger. I am not suggesting which finger, on which hand, held in what way or with what intent; but the reality is very similar to gestures that are commonly used. One can have no confidence in these projected figures.

Dr. Marek: I support the new clause. I believe that British Rail has considered this matter at length, certainly during the past year. My hon. Friend said that British Rail estimates traffic flow by simply taking a particular day in May or June. My hon. Friend is right—British Rail has been doing this from Land's End to John o'Groats. This example shows no departure from British Rail's normal procedures in establishing statistics.

Mr. Holland: I am sorry to hear that confirmation, because it undermines what little faith I have in British Rail's capacity to forecast traffic. I do not know whether that is acceptable to the hon. Member for Northfield, who believes in market forces adjusting supply and demand rather than in planning supply and demand. [Interruption.] I am willing to give way to the Secretary of State,

The Secretary of State for Transport (Mr. John Moore): indicated dissent.

Mr. Holland: It is a pity to lose the point that the right hon. Gentleman was about to raise.
The breakdown in the number of Channel tunnel trains in the year 2003— 98 and 130— shows the great difference in the figures used by British Rail and Eurotunnel. The premise is that peak traffic will be absorbed during the peak vacation or holiday period and that Waterloo will be able to absorb spare capacity because of the decrease in commuter traffic. But that assumes that there will be spare capacity rather than that the Channel tunnel terminal will be a success.
I was interested to learn from my discussions with British Rail today that its latest midweek passenger figures are for 1982. They are five years out of date. We are planning a terminal with the throughput of Gatwick airport based on figures that are five years out of date. Talk about think of a number, subtract those who get off at Ashford, plump for the station thought of in the first place and the answer is Waterloo—that is almost the extent of the statistical basis used by British Rail in pursuing this case.
As I said shortly before the Minister intervened, according to the information that I received today from British Rail, which contrasts with its display on the technicolor boards at Waterloo, the average number of

weekday passengers travelling through Waterloo at peak periods was 204,000 in 1971. It was, on average, between 190,000 and 195,000 between 1961 and 1973–74, 181,000 in 1975 and only 178,000 in the last year for which figures are available. That is much higher than the figures suggested by the misleading public display at Waterloo, which is substituting for ministerial answers. I suggest that the Minister obtains those figures. I am glad that a cooperative middle manager at British Rail has agreed to send me copies of the diagrams, the artwork and the figures on which the estimates are based. For this does not suggest a slump in commuter traffic from Waterloo. It suggests that there is much less spare capacity than the Government say. For example, still talking about the 1982 midweek passenger figures—

Mr. Caborn: If we continue at this rate, they will be 1988 figures.

Mr. Holland: My hon. Friend will appreciate that, unfortunately, I did not have the advantage that he had of sitting on the Select Committee, the Standing Committee or other committees that may have dealt with this matter. [Interruption.] Changing one's mind is an act of intellectual imagination, of which I am sure the Minister is capable. But I trust that he will not change his mind but will listen to the figures. They will be the basis of a continuing debate about the feasibility and viability of Waterloo.
In 1982, the number of midweek passengers totalled 179,000. That is the base. If we then consider the additional passenger traffic generated at Waterloo, on British Rail's figures— I stress that I have excluded through trains from these figures because, obviously, they do not count for terminal purposes— there is an additional 62,000 for British Rail and an additional 83,000 on the 179,000 base from Eurotunnel. This is the crunch. If we put those two figures together, we get 241,000 of feasible traffic on the British Rail figures, and 262,000 feasible daily passenger traffic on the Eurotunnel figures. That is way in excess of the maximum passenger use of the peak for the whole of the post-war period of 204,000 daily passenger traffic.
In practice, this amounts to taking the high of the passenger commuter traffic and adding the type of capacity expansion that Eurotunnel hopes to achieve. The Minister may say that this does not take account of seasonal variations, but the figure is way in excess of the 1971 peak. In fact, it is 25 per cent. above peak post-war capacity as opposed to the 1 per cent. increase— the massaging of one's concern—that we heard earlier from British Rail. If the Minister were to say to me that this assumes a phenomenal success for the Channel tunnel because there will never be that volume of traffic, why does he not plan for a use of the tunnel that can generate that volume of traffic? One of the reasons he cannot do so at the moment is that he assumes that all the traffic will go through Waterloo.
If we get the higher figures, it will have major implications for, first, Customs and Excise, secondly, the underground, thirdly, taxis, fourthly, buses. Fifthly, it spells congestion. That is one reason why we have such little confidence in the figures given by British Rail in this matter. In other respects, the case for dispersal of Channel tunnel traffic is well established.
One of the problems about dispersal is whether there will be on-train customs inspections. It is a major issue. We


appreciate that the Government will wish to take into account the view of trade unions in Customs and Excise matters. I hope that the Government will be able to persuade the trade unions of the merits of on-train customs inspections.
Certain anomalies arise. I have asked the Minister whether the French or the Belgians, for example, will have terminal facilities at their stations. It is an obvious question. They do not have terminal facilities at the moment. One may get on a train in Brussels and go to Paris. One may have a meal and take advantage of all those features that are so lauded by British Rail in some of its advertising, such as "Think of getting on a plane, stretching your legs, having a wider seat, a bigger window and a meal. We so much prefer the 7.27 to the 707 or the 747." In reality, that is what happens between Brussels and Paris. Will it also happen for British passengers arriving in Paris? Will there be a terminal in the Gare du Nord? It is a basic question. Will there be a terminal at the Gare du Nord for British passengers travelling through the Channel tunnel? The Minister does not appear to know. The probability is that French customs and excise would do the same as they have always done when anybody travels on one of their trains. There is no need for a terminal, therefore, or for the new see-through terminal at Waterloo. I say "see-through" advisedly. The terminal has no elevation, in physical terms. All the floors are of perspex. It is difficult to evaluate what stands where and the implications of the terminal. That is one reason why there will be a very lopsided Channel tunnel service.
I have said in previous debates that, if there is to be competition between rail and air transport, there must be on-train customs inspection. On 23 January 1987, I put down a question to the Secretary of State for Transport about whether the SNCF expects customs inspectors on Channel tunnel trains to travel further than Ashford in the pursuit of their duties and whether any Customs and Excise facilities will be operated at Ashford. That has a direct bearing on whether or not such facilities will be needed at Waterloo. I was told that no decisions had been taken about on-train controls for passengers or freight carried on through services, that French and United Kingdom customs are holding discussions with SNCF and British Rail respectively about controls and that, whatever the outcome of the discussions, there would be the familiar red-green arrangements for passengers terminating their journeys at Ashford or Waterloo. I do not think that there will be any familiar red-green arrangements at the Gare du Nord. If there are not, it will be a singular victory for common sense.
Allowing for the difficulties involved in achieving on-train customs inspection, there is a proposal to abolish all internal customs inspections within the EEC. There have been many EEC proposals in the last 25 years. I remember a proposal that called for a common industrial policy to complement the common agricultural policy. That has not seen the light of day. I remember a proposal for a common European statute. That has not seen the light of day, either.
It is just feasible and not beyond the bounds of imagination that we may not see the abolition of customs and excise within the EEC in the next five to seven years. But what if we do? What shall we do then with the great white elephant of a terminal at Waterloo? Shall we turn it back into a new Musee Pompidou? The old argument about French railways as they used to be was that, like

insects, they had all their works on the outside. Perhaps our Waterloo terminal will be a Pompidou in reverse, since our trains always have their works on the inside. Perhaps we shall have a perspex see-through terminal. Next to the national arts complex, that could be quite appropriate, but it would not be very useful if the EEC had abolished internal customs and excise by the time it was completed.

Mr. Caborn: It crosses my mind that perhaps there ought to be harmonisation of the length of speeches in the various Parliaments of Europe. Perhaps there ought to be a time limit, but it seems that that will not happen for a few years to come.

Mr. Holland: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern about the length of my speech.
Reference has already been made to the article in The New Civil Engineer of 11 December 1986. It drew attention to the fact that for the first time the new Snowhill tunnel going via Blackfriars will lead to inter-city trains travelling right through London for the first time. If we consider that, we shall see that there is speculation—

Dr. Marek: Will my hon. Friend give way?

Mr. Holland: No, I am sorry. It may amaze my hoii. Friend, but I have had some encouragement to complete my brief remarks on the clause.
If that is the case, Blackfriars becomes a feasible station for people to alight in London. I should like to put the serious point to the Minister that, if we can shake off the flagship concept of a terminal, why is it not possible for people who want to alight in south London to do so, and for there to be three stops in London for through trains? Those who wish to get off in south London could get off at a south London station and those who wish to get off in central London could do so at Blackfriars, with through trains going on to north London and to the north of the country. Surely that is the most intelligent way to approach the matter.
I have already mentioned the implications of this proposal for the local environment and the damage that could result to the local environment in the Waterloo area. I have also discussed jobs and the fact that there is little expectation that the jobs will benefit those in the local community. I shall not reiterate those points, because they were put very well by representatives of the local community and the Waterloo development group in their submissions to the Select Committee. I trust that they will be able to put their case to the House of Lords, because they had so little time to put their case to the Committee about the impact of the proposals on the local environment.
Finally, the Department of the Environment—the oracle—has alleged that Lambeth has exaggerated the difficulties that the proposal will pose for its planning powers and that Lambeth will not be overridden. However, a circular from the Department of the Environment, reference No. LCM(86)6, states:
In dealing with applications for planning permission local planning authorities shall have regard to the provisions of the current development plans, so far as material to the application, and to any other material considerations. Applications are considered on their merits. As emphasised in Circular 14/85, however, there is a presumption in favour of allowing applications for development.


That is of real concern to those in the local community and I am sure that I shall be able to catch your eye, Mr. Speaker, on a future occasion to explain why.

Dr. Marek: My hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland) took 45 minutes for his speech. I hope that I shall take four and a half minutes.
I advise my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall that I do not think it possible for through trains to use Blackfriars station to go to the north of London because the tunnels are too small as one gets towards Kings Cross. My understanding is that the tunnels cannot be enlarged because of the pipes and other things in the ground in that area. If I am wrong, I shall be pleased to be corrected.

Mr. Stuart Holland: My hon. Friend is wrong.

Dr. Marek: That is fine. I look forward to the possibility of a conversation later to clear up that matter.
Without discussing Waterloo and whether it will be suitable as a terminus, like my hon. Friend the Member for Vauxhall, I completely support new clause 3 which is an important clause. We cannot leave this matter to market forces because it affects us all. The clause refers not only to freight, but to passengers. All of us in the House—indeed everybody in the country as a possible passenger—wish to know British Rail's plans so that we can comment upon them and suggest improvements to British Rail.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) said, British Rail talks to county councils and to local authorities. If those local authorities wish to invest and help British Rail to move more goods by rail they will need to know where and how to invest, and what the time scale should be. It is absolutely vital that that is not kept secret.
I completely disagree with the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) that the matter should be left to a confidential study by British Rail. It must be open and we must know the facts—we are all on the same side in this matter—because we want to make the Channel tunnel the success that I am sure that it will be.
I am aware that the new clause is not written as I would have expected it to be if it had been drawn by parliamentary draftsmen. If the Minister cannot accept it now, I hope that he can say that he will introduce an appropriate clause in another place. I strongly urge the Government to accept the spirit of the new clause if they cannot accept its wording.

Mr. David Mitchell: The Government fully support the objectives of the new clause. Throughout the passage of the Bill the Government have made clear their belief and intention that the Channel tunnel will benefit not just London and the south-east, but the whole of Great Britain. Likewise, British Rail has made abundantly clear its desire and intention to exploit the opportunities which the Channel tunnel will open up to provide improved services to a variety of destinations.
While British Rail needs to provide a terminal in London to cater for passengers who want to travel to and from London, it is also planning to run direct services to the midlands and the north. These services will avoid central London by using the west London line. Those

services will then join the existing radial routes out of London to other destinations. The exact pattern of services has still to be determined. It will depend on British Rail's assessment of the likely pattern of demand. In broad terms, British Rail expects about 20 to 25 per cent. of its passengers through the tunnel to use the direct services to stations beyond London.
British Rail expects to run direct freight services between points throughout Britain and centres in mainland Europe. It believes that freight customers in the midlands, the north and Scotland will stand to benefit particularly from these developments. Rail freight services become particularly attractive for distances over 200 miles and the opening of the tunnel will create enormous new opportunities. There will be time savings of between 24 and 48 hours and it will be possible for freight forwarders to avoid the costs of transferring freight to and from ships.
As in the case of passenger services, the exact pattern of the services to be provided has yet to be determined.

Mr. Stuart Holland: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I shall come to the hon. Gentleman's remarks in a moment.
The services will depend on British Rail's assessment of the likely pattern of demand. British Rail is at present collaborating with Eurotunnel in a regional survey of trade and industry. The survey has my full support. Its aims are to ensure that companies throughout the United Kingdom are fully informed of the exciting opportunities which the tunnel will create for them and to ascertain Britain's likely demand for transport services in the 1990s so that they can be taken into account in planning British Rail services and the infrastructure needed to support them.

Mr. Holland: I appreciate that there are pressures on the Minister, as there are on me, and that it may not be possible for him to reply in detail to my points. Nevertheless, he will appreciate that they were made with considerable seriousness because those questions had not been answered by British Rail. There is a great deal of confusion about what will happen. Will the Minister assure me that within the week he will seek to give me written answers to my questions?

Mr. Mitchell: If the hon. Gentleman could just contain himself, not for as long as his speech but until I reach that part of my speech, I shall deal with his questions.
As part of the process of planning these services British Rail will determine where best to establish new freight collection and distribution centres and where it would be advantageous to have inland customs clearance facilities. Obviously, these facilities must satisfy the throughput and operational criteria established by the customs authorities.
There is already a great deal of work planned or already under way involving British Rail and its various consultants and experts to achieve the objectives of new clause 3. The merit of the new clause is that it will put British Rail's plans firmly on the public record and increase public awareness of the opportunities that they would offer. That is something that the Government would welcome, and I understand that the board would not be opposed to it.
Hon. Members will have heard the hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Holland)—

Mr. Caborn: I wish to ask a question on the criterion for inland customs facilities. If I heard the Minister


correctly, he said that there has been no discussion about the entries that are necessary for inland customs. At present I believe the criterion to be 30,000. If there is no movement on that criterion, it will be extremely difficult for British Rail to match those entries. Was I correct in hearing the Minister say that the criterion will remain the same at 30,000 entries?

Mr. Mitchell: I did not say that they would remain the same. I said that they were matters for the Customs and Excise. The hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has made a point which must be taken into account, and I will consider it further and write to him.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall raised two principal questions at the start of his speech and he embroidered them during his remarks. He asked whether British Rail has made proper forward plans and whether it had consulted. The hon. Gentleman's concern over consultation led him to ask me some months ago if I would arrange for consultation with the local community and particularly with representatives from Lambeth council and the associated boroughs that had problems. I did that. I invited representatives from Vauxhall, Lambeth, the neighbouring boroughs and all the London boroughs which would be affected by British Rail's plans to come to a joint consultation meeting in the same way as I have had successful joint consultation meetings in Kent.
In Kent, we sat down together and cross-examined British Rail. We considered the facts and sought a consensus. All the time we tried to maximise the advantages and to minimise the disadvantages for those who would be affected.
The joint consultation meetings in Kent have proceeded on a constructive and useful basis. A lot of information has been brought out from British Rail about its operational difficulties. I am astonished that the hon. Member for Vauxhall should have the effrontery to make a speech in which he claimed that there has been a lack of consultation. How can he be so out of touch? I held meetings. At the first of the meetings, I invited representatives of the local authorities concerned to spell out their anxieties. At the second meeting, I arranged an agenda that would enable the authorities to question British Rail and have discussions about the very points which the hon. Member for Vauxhall has raised today. What happened? Councillor Colenutt of Lambeth council led a politically inspired walkout because I would not turn the consultation committee into a public meeting in the borough.

Mr. Holland: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell: Just let me finish.
The way in which that politically inspired walkout was carried out is something which I hope that the hon. Gentleman will apologise for. It was an absolute disgrace. Many people, including Ministers, officials, and Departments, came together to enable the cross-examination which the hon. Member for Vauxhall has asked for to take place. However, the political walkout was organised by the council representive for Lambeth.

Mr. Holland: Will the Minister give way?

Mr. Mitchell: I have not finished yet.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall raised the question of Victoria as an alternative and he wanted to know what the costs would be. That is the kind of question that I would

have liked to have heard raised at a consultation meeting for cross-examination with British Rail. It would have been useful for British Rail to be under pressure from different ideas and lines of attack which I might not have thought of. However, that opportunity was lost.
All the points that the hon. Member for Vauxhall raised today could perfectly legitimately and properly have been dealt with at a consultation meeting. He could have raised his questions about buses, taxis and coach access to Waterloo. Far from having ignored those problems, British Rail has used Alexander Gibb and Partners as consultants to provide advice and guidance about how to improve the traffic patterns. That would solve the problem that is worrying the hon. Member for Vauxhall.
The hon. Member for Vauxhall referred to Waterloo as a bottleneck. He has failed to recognise that the morning peak hour commuter traffic at Waterloo will be over by the time that the first trains arrive after their three and a half hour journey from Paris with their flood of passengers. They will not coincide in a way that might lead to the problem about which the hon. Gentleman is worried.

Mr. Holland: The Minister did not put it to the House that Lambeth council and local community groups wanted terms of reference for the inquiry that would compare with the public inquiry. They were not able to obtain that. Secondly, and far more importantly in terms of the rights of hon. Members, the Minister may be unaware or have forgotten that I have put the question as the elected Member for the constituency time and again on the Floor of the House and he has constantly referred me to British Rail. British Rail has not answered the questions. It is a secondary matter as to whether his consultation with local community groups and Lambeth council succeeded or did not succeed—I suspect that there are two sides to that. He has not answered my questions here on the Floor of the House. He has passed me on to British Rail, which has failed to answer my questions, or has announced them to the press without even informing me when it is taking place. That comes damn near to contempt of the House.

Mr. Mitchell: I remind the hon. Gentleman that matters for British Rail should be addressed to British Rail. What was unique about the opportunity provided by the joint consultation committee, out of which his friends walked, was that they would have had the opportunity to cross-examine British Rail. British Rail's representatives would have been there, as would the people with whom we are dealing and planning the Channel tunnel link in relation to its London terminal. They could have been cross-examined. Indeed, after the walkout they were cross-examined by others who remained, on aspects affecting the other boroughs concerned. Lambeth's representatives walked out and lost the opportunity. That is a shame, and it is a shame that the hon. Gentleman is not on his feet apologising for what happened.

Mr. Holland: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: I have dealt with the hon. Gentleman. Other hon. Members have asked questions with which I wish to deal.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) rightly drew attention to the effect of increased productivity in lorry transportation on the distance that


one has to go by rail with freight in order to be able to compete successfully. The hon. Gentleman has much experience of the railways and he is right to say that the figures have been getting bigger. He suggested that they were up to 250 miles. That is a little too high, but one can certainly see the trend. The Channel tunnel is important because it will make those long distances available to British Rail and give it the opportunity to compete successfully with the lorry in so many cases going to continental markets. British Rail now estimates that 1,000 lorries a day will be taken off the road. I am sure that that is something we would all welcome.
The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East queried the adequacy of the funds available to British Rail for investment. I would put one question to him. Can he tell me one viable project that British Rail has put forward for investment that I have turned down? Can he tell me one, not dozens? I think that he will have difficulty finding one.
The hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Ross) fears that sidings will be taken up where they are needed. When I was in Middlesbrough a while ago, standing in the tower overlooking the huge, old-fashioned Middlesbrough freight depot with Colin Driver, the sector director of British Rail, I cross-examined him on that matter. I asked him what would be the pattern of his inland clearance depots and the pattern of his freight depots for maximising the advantages to British Rail of the Channel tunnel. He said that it was too early to give the details. I pressed him further and asked when I could expect to have them. He said that he thought that by July of this year he would be in a position to give me his initial indication of what the pattern might be.
I know that the hon. Member for Sheffield, Central (Mr. Caborn) has a special interest because he and his council and others have raised on a number of occasions what that pattern might be. My advice to the House is that one can expect that pattern to emerge next summer. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) recognised the advantages of longer distance. He said that once the tunnel is in operation there will be substantial benefits for car manufacturers in Birmingham and other places further north. My hon. Friend is absolutely right and has put his finger on a crucial matter. British exporters and manufacturers now suffer the disadvantage of dragging their goods across the Channel, with double handling at each end. When the Channel tunnel is open they will be able to have a timetable for delivery in 24 hours to any major centre on the continent. I have much sympathy with what my hon. Friend has said, but there are certain difficulties with the clause as drafted, which the hon. Member for Wrexham recognises.
Parliamentary counsel has drawn our attention to oddities in the wording of the clause. I shall not detail them fully, but in one respect the clause seems inexplicably weak. As it is drafted, the board is not required to prepare any plan until just before its scheduled works are open to traffic, perhaps not until 1992. The Government believe that the clause could be much more beneficial if it required the board to produce its first plan well before the opening time. We also need to think about how long the duty upon British Rail to produce up-dated plans should continue. In short, the Government believe that this clause should be improved significantly. We therefore undertake to bring forward in the other place a new clause based closely upon

new clause 3 but with the improvements and clarifications that I have just outlined. I hope that on that basis the hon. Gentleman will feel able to withdraw the clause.

Mr. Snape: The House will be grateful for some of the things that the Minister has said. I cannot understand how his drafting experts say that the new clause 3 names any specific dates such as 1992, because it does not. It says:
before their scheduled works are open for traffic
That does not pin anybody down to 1992, but we would be grateful for small mercies.

Mr. Mitchell: That is the trouble. It does not say that it has to be done in July next year or the year after that or at any other time. It leaves it totally vague over seven years. I am sure the hon. Gentleman agrees that that is not his intention.

Mr. Snape: In that case, I understand and appreciate what the hon. Gentleman is saying. He has challenged me to name one private project for investment that he had failed to approve. The House is aware, but it will do no harm to remind hon. Members on both sides, that none of those projects which he has approved—East coast main line electrification, locomotive orders, mark IV rolling stock, driving car trailers for the west coast mainline—means any extra money. They are all generated from the British Railways Board's own resources by the sale of assets and by cutting down services in other areas.
It is a distortion of the facts for the Minister to pretend that he is the King Midas of British Rail. Not a penny of new money has come from the Government towards any of these projects. Sooner or later British Rail will run out of assets to sell, and it is devoted to running down the assets it has. When it has peddled all there is to peddle, we shall test the strength of the commitment of the Minister of State and that of his right hon. Friend to British Rail by saying, "Its coffers are exhausted. Will you replenish them or not?" It is to be hoped that there will be a general election before then and we shall not have to worry.

Mr. Roger King: That is right. The hon. Gentleman will not have to worry. He will still be sitting there.

Mr. Snape: I am glad that the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. King) has given us that little chirrup to remind us of his return to the Chamber. Despite the praise lavished on him by the Minister of State, the House should not overlook the fact that the hon. Member for Northfield, in his normally ignorant and silly way as far as these matters are concerned, actually spoke against the clause. He asked who needs a clause like this when all we need is a siding here and there. Just spend a few bob and send in a crane. What sort of railway system does the hon. Gentleman think we have in the latter part of this decade?
He told us that his main reason for joining the Conservative party was that he was against the late George Brown's national plan in the 1960s. I have heard worse reasons for joining the Conservative party but not many. I suppose that if one needs a good excuse to join the Tory party that one is as good as any that could be put forward. I can only conclude that the hon. Gentleman's knowledge of railway matters began and ended on the day that he made his commitment to join the Tory party. Rail freight has moved on a bit and one siding and one crane is not the


sort of facility that we envisage in new clause 3, the provisions of which were wisely accepted by his hon. Friend the Minister of State.
Some 2 per cent. of British Rail freight and 27 per cent. of the freight carried by SNCF is international. The purpose of the new clause is to bring those two percentages somewhat closer together. Because of geography, unless we can join British Rail's freight network to the rest of the continent that imbalance will be perpetuated. I am grateful to the Minister for much of what he said and especially for his acceptance of the commitments inherent in the new clause. I understand that he will bring forward, as he puts it in his modest way, an even better clause in another place. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.
Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 4

DUTIES WITH REGARD TO NATURE CONSERVATION AND AMENITY

'In formulating or considering any proposals relating to the discharge of their functions under the Act, the concessionaries, the Railway Board, the Kent County Council, the Planning Authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty, of conserving flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest, and of protecting buildings and other objects of architectural, archaeological or historical interest and shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have on the beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area or on any such flora, fauna, features, building or objects, and without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing shall consider in particular:
(i) the effect of any such proposals on the heritage coast of Kent; and
(ii) the desirability of securing that, in the construction of the works authorised by the Act, the movement of minestone from sources in Kent shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be carried out by rail.'.—1[Mr. Snape.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Snape: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to consider new clause 6—Disposal of surplus spoil—
'(1) The Secretary of State and the Concessionaires shall arrange for an independent study to be carried out in order to determine the best means of disposing of surplus spoil produced as a result of the construction of the tunnels referred to in section 1(7)(a) of this Act.
(2) In this section "surplus spoil" means spoil which is intended to be disposed of in the United Kingdom, other than the one million tons to be deposited at Cheriton, Folkestone in connection with the construction of the terminal referred to in section 1(7)(b) of this Act.'.
New clause 7—Restriction on carrying out certain environmentally sensitive development—
'(1) Notwithstanding that planning permission has been, or is deemed to have been granted under Part III of the Town and Country Planning Act 1971, the Concessionaires shall not, within the Shakespeare Cliff Area of Outstanding Natural Beauty, carry out any development in connection with the construction or operation of the tunnel system, unless that development—
(a) consists of the construction of any of their scheduled works; or
(b) has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament.
(2) In this section "development" has the same meaning as in the said Act of 1971.'.

Mr. Snape: I shall concentrate my brief remarks on paragraph (ii) of the new clause, the carriage of minestone and other bulk substances from sources in Kent by rail
to the greatest extent practicable".
The other matters in the new clause are
flora, fauna and geological or physiographical features of special interest,".
I pray in aid the assistance of my expert hon. Friend the Member for the rolling and green uplands of Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) who will entertain the House as he entertained the Committee about this part of the clause.
Those of us who served on the Select Committee on the Channel Tunnel Bill and the Standing Committee will be aware of the importance that the people of Kent attach to the problem of curbing the number of heavy goods vehicles that would be unleashed on Kent roads as a result of this project. Hon. Members on both Committees did what they could to see that as much bulk material as possible was carried by rail in order to reduce the amount of nuisance spoken about at great length by an understandably enormous number of petitioners to the Select Committee.
The Select Committee drew to the attention of local planning authorities and parish councils the likely difficulties that would be caused by the transport of minestone and other bulk fill material. Early in the sittings of the Committee we managed to get an undertaking from the concessionaires that initially all the minestone would be carried by rail. Many petitioners said that a loaded juggernaut is an environmental intrusion whether it is carrying minestone or any other bulk material. To that end, the Committee sought to reopen the matter with the concessionaires. I think that it was on the last day of our public hearings that a supplementary paper on this matter prepared by Eurotunnel was presented to us.
The concessionaires suggested that, in order to increase the proportion of bulk materials to be carried by rail, a railhead might be built a relatively short distance from the terminal with immediate access to the M20, so that lorries would complete the transport of bulk materials to the working sites along the motorway rather than by ordinary roads. We were aware that that assurance conflicted with the earlier assurance to which I have referred that minestone would be moved only by rail. However, the Select Committee rightly felt that the priority was that as little bulk material as possible should be carried by lorries along the ordinary roads of the area. For that reason, the majority of the Select Committee accepted the compromise, and that was behind the drafting of new clause 4.
9.45 pm
There will be difficulties even if, as we hope, the Minister accepts the provisions of the new clause. Both Committees involved in the Bill expect Kent county council to exercise its powers to ensure that as few lorries as possible carry bulk materials by any other road than the M20 to the working sites. The Select Committee emphasised the importance of Kent county council actively enforcing the regime that is agreed with Eurotunnel and its contractors so that it can be made to work properly.
In commending this new clause to the House, I express the hope that it will be possible for lorries engaged on this particular project to be clearly marked in order that their movement can be effectively policed by the residents in the area whose environment and lifestyle will be considerably


disturbed if the provisions of the agreement between the concessionaires and the planning authority are not adequately adhered to.
I hope that the Minister will look as sympathetically on new clause 4 as he did on new clause 3, and if he feels that new clause 4 needs strengthening in a similar way to the previous clause, I can assure him of the Opposition's full co-operation, because we are as anxious as I am sure that he and other Ministers in the Department are to see that, while this scheme progresses, the environment of the people of Kent is adequately protected at all times.

Mr. Crouch: When the Bill was considered in Standing Committee I was interested in the constant reference to the Shakespeare cliff and the constant reference by my hon. Friend the Minister of State to Edgar in King Lear. It was picked up, followed and even distorted a bit by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). I have sat here the live-long day to make one short intervention on a matter which has concerned me for all the time that we have talked about the Channel tunnel. The House and my constituents know that I have been a supporter of the tunnel, and in some ways they have been dismayed by that. Some of my colleagues immediately around me representing the county of Kent have been dismayed at my enthusiasm for the tunnel.
I shall say something briefly about environmental considerations. New clause 4 is about nature conservation and amenities, and it attracts me. I am not wise enough with words—unlike a craftsman—to say whether the clause is well drafted or strong enough. The last clause came in for some criticism from my right hon. Friend the Minister in that regard. I like the wording of the clause, particularly the first paragraph, because it covers all of my worries and anxieties, and those of my constituents as well as the great majority of people who live in Kent, whether they welcome the tunnel or whether they do not want the tunnel. What they are concerned about is that if we build it we should not destroy what has often been called the garden of England. It is somewhat wrongly named. It is the hop garden of England, not necessarily the beautiful garden of England, but that has come to be the term used to describe Kent, and it is a good one, too.
As we proceed with this great engineering project, I do not want to see the sort of disastrous environmental mistakes that we made between the wars. I can remember the building of the Great West road out of London. It was a great idea to have a good exit from London, but we allowed industrial development to sprawl all along it. I remember the Firestone factory being built. I remember it being nearly destroyed recently, but today it is a building of industrial architectural interest.
In this day and age, when we embark on a major engineering project—this is the biggest in Europe this century—we must get it right, not only in engineering and economic terms—those have been considered in great detail by the House, in Select Committee and in Standing Committee, and rightly so—but environmentally. We can build something big that is economically advantageous, but we could in the process destroy the environment which makes Kent attractive. That is the first sight of England for the visitor from the continent. If we

are not careful, we could destroy that. We could allow London to sprawl out all the way down to Folkestone if we are not careful.
In a loose moment the former Secretary of State for Transport, my right hon. Friend the Member for Cirencester and Tewkesbury (Mr. Ridley), told me that my people in Kent need not worry because 100,000 jobs would be created one day. I think that that might be so and I know that that causes dismay in some quarters of the House. Some hon. Members from the north, Scotland and elsewhere fear that the tunnel will be such a magnet that those 100,000 jobs will be a reality in perhaps 30 years' time. I shall not complain, but it will raise problems in other parts of the country, which I respect.
However, I shall complain bitterly if we allow the Bill to go forward without some real protection for our environment and amenities, and we could do so. I have here the briefing papers from Eurotunnel which contain several hundred paragraphs, yet there are only 24 words out of thousands from the engineers on the environment. That is not good enough for me. The Bill runs to 100 pages, yet I cannot find one clause out of the 47, and not one schedule, which covers this important need.
I know that my hon. Friend the Minister and the Secretary of State are not far behind me in supporting the need to protect the environment. I know that the House feels that we must do that. But somehow, in the welter of words that have gone to make up discussion on the Bill, it seems to have been left out of the record. I have studied some of the Committee reports and I have noticed how reference to the environment emerged on the first day. The hon. Member for Fulham raised it and my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) also spoke about it. But they referred essentially to what might happen to Shakespeare cliff if the spoil was deposited there.
I am concerned about what the rich industrial spoil of industrial growth might do to Kent. That is what I want to see protection against. I do not want to lose the flora and fauna and architectural and archeaological interest that exists in Kent today. There is an enormous amount of history there. In my constituency, one can see, if one searches, where Caesar stood at Harbledown, north of Canterbury, and realised that he was on his way to victory. In another part of Kent one can see where the Duke of Normandy landed and went on to conquer our country. One can see those places over the border perhaps in Hastings, but one can see reminders of the landing in Sandwich Bay, too.
I do not want to lose those things and I am sure that we can protect them. There are so many words in the briefing on economic aspects, on employment aspects, on the market for the tunnel, on the link of the British and French rail networks, on land acquisition and compensation, on safety and fire-fighting. Those are all terribly important points. Protection against rabies is mentioned, security, frontier controls, control and protection against the illegal movement of drugs, ventilation and so on.
However, unfortunately, there is no mention in the Bill of environmental protection, except perhaps right at the very end in schedule 7 which contains a list of seven protective provisions for highways, for the railway board, for navigation, for the Dover harbour board, for the statutory authorities, the water authorities, gas, electricity and sewerage, for the Folkestone and District water


company and for telecommunications operators. There was a chance to put in a provision to protect the environment. So why was it not put in?
Developers, engineers, concessionaires, builders and planners can and do and have in the past run ahead with their great profits and forgotten about the environment. As a supporter of the tunnel I may have dismayed my constituents, but their main concern all along has been its effect on the environment. I have argued that it is possible to have a modern engineering project and protect the environment. Of course the tunnel will change the environment at the terminal at Cheriton outside Folkestone which is in the immediate vicinity of the tunnel. The tunnel will take 350 acres of land.
The M20 that will lead to the tunnel will be a six-lane motorway. It will no doubt be like the M25 today, packed with traffic, but at least the traffic will be funnelled to the tunnel and concentrated there rather than sprawling on many other roads to that terminal.
This Bill should say something to engineers and concessionaires about protecting the environment as they go along. The Minister and the Secretary of State have frequently stated their interest in this matter. I am sure that the Minister is determined that the environment should be protected. An environment protection requirement should be laid on Eurotunnel in this Bill. I commend this new clause. Whether it is sufficiently well drafted I do not know, but it would do the trick. if my hon. Friend the Minister thinks that it should perhaps be made even stricter, new provisions should be written into the Bill and it should be taken on board in the other place too if it is neglected here. It is an important matter. The whole of the people of Kent would welcome that addition and they would say "Parliament at least stood up for us and for the environment. Parliament protected us. We may not agree with some of the things that Parliament and Government have decided and the fact that Parliament decided to endorse what the Government proposed, but here is something important which we, the people of Kent, have been saying all along. We want protection of our environment which we think is good."
This will perhaps be my last song about the Channel tunnel, the Eurotunnel, but I have made an important point.

Mr. Nick Raynsford: The hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) rightly focused on the importance of environmental issues. He may have rather underestimated the extent to which they featured in the work of the Standing Committee. Shakespeare cliff alone was not debated. There were repeated and frequent debates on environmental issues, mostly initiated by Labour Members but with the support of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). They were not successful because repeatedly, in Division after Division, the Government showed themselves reluctant to accept amendments which were designed to protect the environment from some of the worst effects of this scheme.
We saw that with the impact on the villages of Newington and Frogholt, on the site of special interest along the north downs escarpment, with the protection of Holywell coombe and Dollands moor, and with a large number of other sites—not only in Kent, but equally in London. It is wrong to suggest that environmental matters

relate only to Kent. People in London greatly value their access to relatively small areas of natural land where they can follow the interests—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That, at this day's sitting the Channel Tunnel Bill may be proceeded with, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Ryder.]

Channel Tunnel Bill

Mr. Raynsford: Many people in the London area greatly value the opportunity to make use of areas of natural landscape, where they can follow their interests in birds, flora and fauna. Indeed, one of the small crumbs of comfort in Committee was a minor amendment, eventually conceded by the Government with rather had grace, designed to protect the interests of wildlife in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Hammersmith (Mr. Soley). Owing to the painstaking and meticulous work of a 16-year-old boy, an extraordinary report was put together on the extent, variety and richness of wildlife in that rather surprising and unpromising area.
Many of those who fought for the environmental issues in Committee were conscious that Eurotunnel was showing little interest in protecting the landscape and environment from the adverse impact of its plans. We know of the enormous struggle that it took to make it accept the logic of a southern access route to the Cheriton terminal, which would greatly minimise environmental damage. Despite all the efforts of local people and the Shepway council, Eurotunnel dragged its heels to the last minute, reluctant to accept the case for an environmentally far superior approach. My anxiety about Eurotunnel's attitude remains strong today.
A matter of even greater concern has been the evidence not so much of the way in which Eurotunnel has subordinated the interests of the landscape and our natural heritage to its economic and financial advantage, but the Government's unwillingness to stand up for a British nature, heritage and natural landscape and protect it against the ravages of Eurotunnel. It has been depressing to watch, time and again, the Government preferring to support Eurotunnel short-term economic advantages rather than ensuring that the landscape and the environment are properly protected.
No greater example of that can there be than the sad story of Shakespeare cliff, which illustrates only too clearly the extent to which private capital seeking financial advantage pushes the interests of our countryside and coastline into a subordinate position. The Government., quite, deplorably, have gone along with that and failed to stand up for British interests.
It is widely accepted that there is a need for a working platform at Shakespeare cliff. However, from the outset it was said that that platform should be kept to the minimum size necessary. Serious environmental damage will be caused by any extension of the platform. That point was made both in the economic appraisal of the schemes submitted by the various companies which tendered for the fixed link and by the Government's independent consultants appointed to consider the matter. They recommended that an alternative site should be explored for dumping all the spoil, other than that which was


necessary for the minimum size working platform. They also recommended that there should be a proper feasibility study carried out of the alternative sites. The Government did not take up that recommendation. Instead, the Government simply allowed Eurotunnel to commission a report from Eurotunnel's consultants that inevitably recommended that it was financially advantageous for Eurotunnel to dump the rest of the spoil—approximately 1·85 million cubic metres—at the base of Shakespeare cliff. It will treat the area as a dump for the chalk spoil, dug out of the tunnel, to be deposited simply for financial reasons, irrespective of the impact on the coast line.
It was a question not just of Eurotunnel allowing private greed to get in the way of the public interest but of the British Government going along with its recommendations. That is depressing.
What is even more depressing is that, during the Committee stage, we discovered the extent to which the British Government were prepared to have a far greater amount of spoil dug out of the tunnel than the French. It emerged in Committee that Britain would receive 4·75 million cubic metres of spoil while the French would receive 3 million cubic metres of spoil. That is the result of the Government's willingness to allow an arrangement which would be disadvantageous to this country and, beyond that, their willingness for that dumping to take place where it will have damaging environmental effects on the coastline at Shakespeare cliff.
The clear implication was that the meeting point of the tunnel was not midway through the tunnel as has had been implied initially. There would not be a roughly equivalent amount of spoil dug out at each end—as implied in the original prospectus published by Eurotunnel. The game plan had changed. It was to Eurotunnel's financial advantage to dump spoil at Shakespeare cliff and the British Government ignored the interest of the environment and simply allowed it to proceed to dump greater amounts of spoil on our coastline.
One of the more illuminating experiences in Committee was the extent to which the mid-point of the tunnel was getting nearer and nearer to the French end with every ministerial pronouncement. We heard that the meeting point would be slightly nearer to the French coast. The Minister conceded this on 11 December when he said that the maximum distance would be 2 km nearer the French coast. He said:
I can assure the hon. Gentleman that the maximum… is 2 kilometres".—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 11 December 1986; c. 128.]
However, by 16 December the Minister was conceding that the meeting point was 3·2 km nearer the French side than the British side. We were left with the impression that, if the Committee had continued to discuss the meeting point, it would have got nearer until it reached the French coast.
That may be rather humorous, but not when one considers the question of the spoil to be deposited on our coastline. However, ultimately national interests have been surrendered to Eurotunnel's economic advantage. The fact is that it would cost Eurotunnel an extra £40 million to move the spoil to a more environmentally desirable place elsewhere. What is sad and depressing is that the financial interests of the private contractors have

overruled the national interest. What is even more depressing is that the Government have not stood up for those national interests.
This new clause is essential as it makes clear our concern for the countryside, our national heritage, landscape, flora and fauna, not just in Kent but in London. These are important matters which must override the short-term economic interest of Eurotunnel. It is our responsibility to stand up for the national interest in a way that the Government have lamentably failed to do during the proceedings on the Bill. I sincerely hope that we will ensure that this clause, or something similar to it, is incorporated in the Bill.

Mr. Aitken: It is never too late for deathbed repentances. For that reason, I hope that the Government will accept the thinking behind the new clause, even though they managed to reject, with bewildering stubborness, a range of environmental protection amendments which were proposed in reasonable and moderate terms in Standing Committee.
I am a little concerned about whether new clause 4 is a clause of good intentions that will lead nowhere and mean nothing. I should like to know what happens if the concessionaires do not
have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty
and other good intentions. They have not expressed much inclination so far to show their good regard. They have produced only 24 words out of several hundred thousand in their pamphlets. I am concerned that the new clause may not have enough teeth. I am worried about the vagueness of the definition of, for example, "heritage coast of Kent". Although I am a resident of Kent, I am not sure exactly where the "heritage coast" can be said to begin and to end and I doubt whether that is an appropriate legal expression. Nevertheless, the new clause is well intentioned. It remedies the appalling gaps left in environmental protection because of the Government's refusal to take on board any of the amendments suggested in Standing Committee or by the Select Committee. This measure is a marked improvement.
I understand why the Labour party might feel it necessary to propose the new clause—to throw a sop in the direction of the people of Kent. I do not begrudge Labour Members their one amazing success in Standing Committee when, late at night, they persuaded the Government to accept an amendment insisting that the concessionaires and others should take into account the views of a hitherto unknown body, the London Wildlife Trust, about a patch of land encased by three railway lines and two motorways and overlooked by Wormwood Scrubs prison.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman should be less modest. It was agreed by the Government not just at the Opposition's instigation but because of the hon. Gentleman's enthusiastic support.

Mr. Aitken: I know a bandwagon when I see one.

Mr. Snape: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that he did not vote for this measure because he was under the impression that it was the London Nightlife Trust?

Mr. Aitken: My night life recently has been spent listening to the hon. Gentleman speak at about 3 o'clock in the morning or later.
The prisoners of Wormwood Scrubs have been granted a measure of environmental protection by the Bill as


amended in Standing Committee, yet so far the law-abiding citizens of Kent. with the garden of England stretching before them, have been granted no such environmental protection. My cry is, "Equal rights for the citizens of Kent as for the prisoners of Wormwood Scrubs." The prisoners are being indirectly consulted on environmental matters and so should the people of Kent.
New clause 4 has been grouped with new clauses 6 and 7, which stand in my name and which are probing measures. Because both were debated so well in Standing Committee, they need not be considered at great length. Before we conclude our consideration of the Bill, we should be aware of the murky—perhaps even monkey—business of the switched consultants who so conveniently changed their minds on the vital issue of the disposal of spoil at Shakespeare cliff. The Government originally commissioned a firm of consultants to advise them on that crucial environmental issue. The consultants, who were called "land use consultants", came up with three recommended sites for spoil disposal. None of them involved Shakespeare cliff. The selected site was a place called Lappel bank. It was an admirable site in terms of the environment, but, unfortunately for land use consultants, it was not convenient from the point of view of the economic interests of Eurotunnel who found it more expensive to transport disposed spoil to that recommended site.
10.15 pm
With a deft manoeuvre, Eurotunnel commissioned some consultants of its own, called Messrs. Environmental Research Ltd. That firm produced a report that—surprise, surprise—recommended that the spoil be disposed of at the cheapest possible site in the interests of Eurotunnel, Shakespeare cliff. So, Shakespeare cliff it is at the moment, and an eyesore it will be—a 68-acre protuberance on one of the most beautiful landmarks in Britain as a result of the switched consultants' manoeuvre. The Select Committee did not think much of this manoeuvring. Its unanimous recommendation states:
The Committee remain concerned at implications of the use of Shakespeare cliff as the spoil disposal site. We therefore recommend that Her Majesty's Government and Eurotunnel should re-examine the use of alternative or additional sites before proceedings on this Bill are completed.
So far, if there has been any reconsideration, it has been an empty ritual. Therefore, I strongly urge—if I am able to do so from the Government Back Bench—the other place to look again at the issue of spoil disposal. I see no good reason why, on the basis of one hired consultant cancelling out the recommendation of the Government's own consultants, Parliament should vote for a major environmental change on one of the most beautiful and picturesque landmarks of the country. The matter needs to be studied. I strongly suspect that there has been a degree of dirty work or, certainly dirty spoil, at the crossroads so far over the business of the switched consultants. The matter needs to be looked at afresh by a new pair of independent eyes. Independent consultants should come on to the scene and make recommendations. I hope that is achieved by this new clause.
New clause 7 refers to potential buildings and changes on Shakespeare cliff. This is the first big battle outside Parliament over development and planning permission. There are a number of courageous councillors in the Dover district council. Dover has two parliamentary representatives. My right hon. and learned Friend the

Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) represents that town, and I represent some of the villagers in the town of Sandwich in the Dover district. Eurotunnel submitted its first planning application, and the Dover district council rejected it on honourable environmental grounds. I salute the mover of that motion, Councillor Bill Henderson of Ash. He is a stalwart farmer who has always strongly defended the environment and all things Kentish and English. I am not surprised that his motion carried the day.
In the course of the Standing Committee proceedings, my hon. Friend the Minister made an imputation against the worthy councillors of Dover. He said that they had ratted on some agreement. I can only assure him, after noting what Councillor Bill Henderson said, that there was no question of him or any others being aware of any previous agreement. If there were any such agreement. it was unauthorised in terms of the knowledge of the elected councillors.
It is a potentially unhappy situation. The Government referred to it as a mere hitch. I referred to it as a derailment of the Eurotunnel gravy train. The truth probably lies somewhere between the two. It will certainly be serious for Eurotunnel if the clause is not amended and if wiser counsels do not prevail. Therefore I have written into the new clause a provision whereby, if Dover district council, the Government and Eurotunnel continue to quarrel, their quarrel will be resolved on such an important issue as Shakespeare cliff by the decision of this House.
Eurotunnel has not helped matters by making an extraordinary announcement about one of its economic plans. In the Financial Times of 22 January there was an article under the headline
Eurotunnel more hopeful on revenue.
It needs to be more hopeful on revenue, given its disastrous economic position, with directors quarrelling and shareholders vanishing in a puff of white smoke. In a desperate attempt to shore up shareholder confidence, Eurotunnel announced a new break through as a way of increasing advertising revenue. Under the headline to which I have already referred it said:
One way of increasing revenue would be through the sale of advertising sites.
That announcement sent a tremor through the environmentalists of Kent. The notion that Eurotunnel's finances could be boosted by erecting more advertising sites all round the county of Kent, particularly on such beautiful sites as Shakespeare cliff, completely justifies the environmentalists' concern. That is one good reason why Dover district councillors, who are perturbed by the environmental eyesores that could be created, have taken such a courageous stand.
If Dover district council and the Government continue to quarrel, their quarrel is likely to be resolved by an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment. The only problem is that the present Secretary of State for the Environment is the proud father of the Channel tunnel project. My right hon. Friend could hardly be expected to sit in impartial judgment on a planning application that could hold up Eurotunnel's progress if that application is not granted swiftly. To expect my right hon. Friend effectively to be the appellate body would be a breach of the rule of natural justice that no man shall be judge in his own cause.
Clause 7 would provide a solution to this problem. The House of Commons and Parliament would vote on such a vital issue as the Shakespeare cliff area of outstanding


natural beauty. That is not a perfect solution, but it is a great deal better than the present imperfect solution over the impasse between Eurotunnel and Dover district council with the impasse being resolved only by an appeal to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State who, fine and honourable man though he is, is the most committed of people to the Channel tunnel.
The three new clauses try to do their bit towards preserving the environment. It is a necessary step. I hope that the Government will move in the direction of new clause 4 and improve its drafting in another place. All three new clauses are laudable in their intention and I commend them to the House.

Mr. Peter Rees: I intervene with diffidence in the debate, since I was not privileged to be a member of the Standing Committee. In this connection, I pay an unsolicited tribute to the activities of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who, not for the first time, proved to be a doughty upholder of the interests of east Kent and of my constituency in particular. I hope that it is not arrogant of me to say that of all the constituencies represented in the House, mine is the one that is perhaps most directly affected by what we are debating tonight.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Michael Howard): Oh!

Mr. Rees: I beg the pardon of my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). He and I will resolve elsewhere who has the melancholy privilege of representing the constituency most directly affected. Assiduous as always in discharging his constituency duties, my hon. and learned Friend has been sitting through the debates, and we are only sorry that on this occasion constitutional convention prevents him from making a more direct contribution.
I hope that I may comment briefly on the three new clauses. We are debating new clause 4 which stands in the name of the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape). Without sounding patronising, I should like to say that his sentiments are impeccable, although the direction is a little imprecise. However, I warmed to the conclusion of that new clause, which invites all those who are directly concerned to have regard to
the effect of any such proposals on the heritage coast of Kent.
Like my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, I am not quite certain who represents the heritage coast. Again, presumptuously, I claim the greater part of it in the Dover and Deal constituency, but again I may be provoking my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe.
I come now to the second specific proposal in new clause 4, which touches on
the desirability of securing that … the movement of minestone … shall be carried out by rail.
That alarms me because it suggests that the assurance, which I understood was given to the Select Committee by Eurotunnel, to the effect that minestone would be carried by rail, is not to be regarded as a copper-bottomed, comprehensive guarantee. Therefore, I hope that the Minister will advise us how he regards the status of that guarantee. It is a matter of acute concern to the many villages in my constituency that are located along the roads

on which, inevitably, the minestone would have to be carried from the Betteshanger, Snowdown and Tilmanstone collieries to Cheriton or perhaps to some other point of the workings, that such minestone should be taken by rail, and not by road.

Mr. Snape: I am grateful to the right hon. and learned Gentleman. I do not wish to pre-empt anything that his hon. Friend the Minister will say, but I do not know whether he was present when I moved the somewhat imprecise clause to which he referred. However, I said that the Select Committee of which I was a member accepted Eurotunnel's assurances on the last day of our sitting, that, although the construction of a terminal alongside the M20, might mean that some minestone would be carried by road along the M20, it would, we thought, be environmentally better for the people whom the right hon. and learned Gentleman represents, and for the people of Kent in general.

Mr. Rees: We are all focusing on the same point. I hope that I speak for the entire House in saying that we should be grateful for the Minister's opinion about that situation. Should there be any doubt about that point, I must put my hon. Friend on notice that the matter will certainly be raised in another place by many of those whom I have the privilege to represent.
New clause 6 stands in the name of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. Again, I echo his perceptive and elegant phrases on the important issue of soil disposal because, on present form, the brunt of that operation, if I may so describe it, is likely to be borne in my constituency. As I understand it, leaving aside the million cubic tonnes which will be deposited at Cheriton, the greater part will have to be deposited at the base of Shakespeare cliff. I do not think that I need comment to such an informed audience as the Chamber comprises—I see many hon. Members who served on the Standing Committee and on the Select Committee—the charms of Shakespeare cliff, with all its literary associations. Again, I warm with admiration to the quotations from "King Lear" and other sources with which my hon. Friend the Minister regaled the Standing Committee. The cliff is a feature of considerable importance to those in my constituency, and, I am sure, to other people living in east Kent and elsewhere.
Although one may have to accept reluctantly that Shakespeare cliff is the best site, by comparison with any other offered, none the less I should feel happier if the matter were considered carefully by the Select Committee in another place. Indeed, having glanced at the report of the Standing Committee, I note that my hon. Friend the Minister said that his Department would make available all the necessary evidence for a further thorough review of this sensitive issue by that Select Committee.
I diffidently suggest that there are two points. First, where can the spoil be placed satisfactorily? My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) may have views about that. Secondly, if that spoil is not to be placed in an area close to the workings, how is it to be carted away? That question may generate the same concern as the movement of minestone.
10.30 pm
I now want to consider new clause 7. I was alarmed by the construction placed on the Bill by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. The principle that Eurotunnel


can derive additional revenue by placing advertising hoardings in and around Shakespeare cliff and other sensitive spots underlies the new clause. I must stress that no one has devoted as much thought to these matters than my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, but, although I do not want to deny Eurotunnel any reasonable sources of revenue, I would regard the placing of hoardings in those areas as an unreasonable source of revenue.
Until I had heard the interesting comments of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South, on a perhaps inexpert reading of the Bill I had assumed that the planning permisson granted by clause 9 was limited specifically to the works of construction. I do not regard advertising hoardings, restaurants, kiosks or fun fairs sited at the base of Shakespeare cliff on the pan or apron that is to be constructed there, as within the scope of clause 9. I hope that my hon. Friend the Minister of State will be able to reassure us about that. I am not claiming that this has not been an extremely useful debate, but if the Minister replies to that point, at least we would have it on record that that is the way in which the Government consider that the Bill should be construed.
If there is any doubt about the point, I am sure that my hon. Friend the Minister would want to meet the legitimate anxieties of my constituents and perhaps the constituents of other hon. Members representing east Kent constituencies. That would ensure that the planning consent afforded by the Bill is of a limited and specific character and that any operations outside the scope of the excavation of the tunnel are matters for special and separate planning applications. Although my hon. Friend the Minister might not want to go quite as far as that, I hope that if there were matters of acute sensitivity—if, for example, the scale was considerable—my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment would consider it appropriate to call in such applications in view of the implications in a very sensitive part of the world.
These are three extremely important and useful clauses. Depending upon the reply that the Minister gives, I hope that we will elicit something that will be read and scrutinised with extreme care and which will have a considerable bearing on the way in which the Bill proceeds in this House and in another place.

Mr. Roger Moate: My hon. Friend the Minister of State will appreciate that the proposal before us has achieved unanimity among Kent Members which has been lacking so far in the previus proceedings on the Bill. I hope that he will understand the significance of that, as it shows that this is a worthy proposal. I hope that he will respond, if he cannot accept the precise wording in the clause, in a way that shows that he supports the principle. I hope that a proposal and protection of this kind will be incorporated in the legislation in one form or another.
It has been suggested that the proposition lacks teeth. It is certainly an expression of good intention. If it were only that, we would welcome it as a benign, albeit toothless, smile. That would be better than nothing. However, I imagine that many lawyers will be able to translate these good intentions in the courts into rather more meaningful protections.
These protections must be of value to all of us. It would be of special comfort to the people of Kent and elsewhere if such a clause could be incorporated. Without having carried out major research into the matter, I believe that

there are many precedents in other Bills, expressed in general terms, for the protection of flora and fauna and the the environment generally. I can certainly recall private Bills, not hybrid Bills with which I have been concerned, where the Committee has inserted clauses such as this. I hope that my right hon. and hon. Friends will take heed of that, look at the precedents, if they need to—perhaps they have already decided to accept the clause—and go ahead with it at least in principle.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) was competing with my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) as to who was going to suffer the most. Undoubtedly those Kent constituencies are in the front line. My point is that the damage to the environment potentially spreads throughout the county and beyond. It fans out in a much broader way and the new clause is sufficiently wide to offer some comfort and protection to those areas far beyond the front-line constituencies. That is why I welcome the way in which it is expressed. It does not lay a duty just upon Eurotunnel, it lays a duty upon the
Railway Board, Kent County Council, the Planning Authorities and the appropriate Minister or Ministers.
I believe that to be of fundamental importance, because much of the environmental impact will be felt in constituencies such as mine.
I should like to take the time of the House to express my fundamental objection to the tunnel. I have been a Member of the House for 17 years and throughout those years one of my principle concerns has been about the damage caused by heavy lorries to the roads and ancient buildings of Kent. I have been concerned with the damage to our villages and towns caused by impact, vibration or sheer volume.
Most of us—it is certainly not confined to Kent constituencies—have fought long and hard for bypasses for our villages. Many of us have fought hard against increasingly heavy lorries using unsuitable rural roads. We have seen cold stores designed for agricultural use become used for increasingly industrial purposes. We have seen international lorries using depots designed for the horse and cart age.
My concern is what the tunnel will do by the generation of more traffic through the unsuitable roads of Kent. We will be told that it will all go on the M2 and M20, but those roads are virtually up to capacity already. The inevitable result is that we will see more traffic filtering through every highway and byway and every rural lane, using every rat run available throughout the county.
I should like the Minister to address that point. I should like him to say that, by accepting a clause of this kind, he accepts that Ministers, the county council and the planning authorities would have a duty to respond to that threat. They could respond in a number of ways. They could respond by assuring us that they will not increase the lorry weight from 38 tonnes to 40 tonnes. the pressure for that change will be great once we have easier traffic flows through to the continent. They could give us an assurance that they will welcome weight and width restrictions throughout the county. That is hard to achieve at present.

Mr. David Mitchell: Is my hon. Friend saying that he favours more smaller lorries rather than fewer larger lorries? I want to understand his argument.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend will not tempt me into a debate about lorry weights. All the evidence so far is that the heavier the lorry—the more economical the use of lorry transport—the more lorries we get. We do not get fewer. Time will tell who is right on that debate. So far most of the forecasts we made when lorry weights were increased have been proved correct. However, I shall not be drawn into that discussion.
It is within the power of Government, and it would be underlined by this new clause, to ensure that we limit the damage done by cars and heavy lorries on roads through many of the most beautiful villages in our area. Fundamental to this point is whether the tunnel will generate more rail or road traffic. The railway lobby sees the tunnel as a great boon to the railway industry. I see it as a bonanza for lorries. All we are doing is creating a new underground ferry designed to serve the best interests of the car and lorry traffic of this modern age. The interests and profits of Eurotunnel will be best served and secured, not by long-distance freight or by passengers on trains, but by encouraging and maximising the traffic of cars and heavy lorries through our county.
This is my worry. I want my right hon. Friend to deal with and prevent the impact and vibration problems caused by heavy lorries and cars using roads which were never designed for that purpose, and to consider compensation for householders who suffer in that way. A clause of this kind has to be welcomed. It offers protection in specific areas, especially to those affected by the immediate developments, but it offers a broad statement of intent and powers with regard to counties and places far beyond the immediate area of impact.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover mentioned the constituency of Faversham in the context of the disposal of spoil. Without going into detail, I was disappointed that the concept of depositing much of this spoil on the Lappel bank in my constituency seems to have been abandoned.
At the Lappel bank in the Medway there is land that requires reclamation. We have the opportunity to move this spoil around by sea without causing any traffic problems at all on the roads. There is a strong economic and environmental argument for that and I thoroughly endorse my right hon. and learned Friend's hope that a Select Committee in another place will examine this question thoroughly again to ensure that we make no mistakes in that respect.
I am glad that my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch) and I are in agreement on this issue. I fear that his romantic attachment to the Channel tunnel is totally at variance with his belief that we can in some way secure environmental protection, but I respect his sincerity. I think that there will be environmental damage, but I hope that the House will not lose this opportunity of including in the Bill a general statement of intention and hopefully of giving some powers and duties to the Government to take whatever steps are necessary to protect our environment from the worst effects of this development.

Mr. Jeremy Hanley: I have kept silent during the discussion on this Bill, perhaps because I believe that the Channel tunnel is in the national interest and because it is best to leave the debate on it to Members representing the locality. But on this point I have to make a comment and a plea to the Government. I speak

as vice-president of the London Wildlife Trust, a group which has had environmental victories of late, but the most important reason why I speak is that I was a resident for more than 13 years just two miles from Sellindge and seven miles from Folkestone. That area was the site of my formative years. My grandparents lived for 20 years in Hythe. I always regarded that area as home.
My first political experience was gained from joining the Young Conservatives in the constituency of Folkestone and Hythe, although I must admit that my purpose was not political but rather to be an inch closer to the daughter of the then Member for Folkestone and Hythe—and delightful she was.
My sisters were all educated in the area. Regrettably, because of my close interest in the flora and fauna of that area I was sent further away, but I spent many a happy year on the beaches there and indeed explored Shakespeare cliff and stood on the old disused Shakespeare Halt, although in later years I spent a lot of my time on the leas in Folkestone well after the time of day when one could see the local sights.
In spite of the arguments of the Opposition, the Government have an enviable record in this Parliament on the environment. In many areas they have brought a greening to the House. In practical terms they have a better record on the environment than any Government. Therefore, it would be a grave disappointment if they did not express a commitment to this most beautiful area in the south-east of England.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. Gentleman makes a claim about the Government's environmental record. Has he read the reports of the debates in the Standing Committee and has he any comments to make on the repeated refusal of the Government to accept even the most modest, minor amendment designed to protect the environment from the worst ravages of this scheme?

Mr. Hanley: Not only have I read the reports of the Committee but I share an office with an hon. Member who was on that Committee and I have discussed these matters at length with him. If the hon. Gentleman had been listening to my speech instead of trying to rise on environmental issues like a trout to the fly he would have heard me say that this construction is in the national interest. However, I draw a line on the point of the environment. There must necessarily be some damage to the environment with a construction of this size. I ask the Government to renew and improve their commitment to the environment in the way that they have done so many times in this Parliament.
I do not support new clause 4. It is full of precatory words, wishes and hopes. It reminds me of the person who put in his will the clause, "And to my Uncle Harry who wanted to be remembered in my will, hello Harry." The clause does not mean anything—it is just wishes. This area of Kent is one of the most beautiful parts of Britain. I am sure that the Government would not embark on a scheme of this size without a commitment to the environment.
I should like to pay tribute to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard). We have talked a great deal about the beauty of his constituency. When one has a majority the size of mine, it is no doubt believed that my jealousy for his


constituency and the position he holds arises purely because of the majority that he enjoyed in the last election. He knows, because of his love of his constituency, that my jealousy is based not only on a beautiful area but on people I remember well, many of whom he knows. My hon. and learned Friend is full of frustration about these discussions. If the Government were to give a commitment

to make sure that this development is as sensitive as possible to the environment, and if they can give a commitment to the landscaping and to the lessening of destruction that must occur because of building in some areas, I know that my hon. and learned Friend will be happy. So will I and the millions of people who know this area of Britain.

Mr. Simon Coombs: I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) will forgive me if I do not follow him down the byways of his youth. I should like to refer to the speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) and remind him that Britain is a trading nation and, if it is to survive, must continue to trade with our nearest partners on the continent.
It is reasonable to assume that by constructing a rail tunnel rather than having a road tunnel or continuing with ferries as the main way of reaching the continent, we increase the chances of getting some of the heavy lorries off the roads of Kent and the roads in the rest of Britain. That must be our objective, and we say to British Rail that it should take up the challenge and try to meet it.
There are those in the House who believe that the Channel tunnel must not be allowed to spoil the environment. Equally, there are those who believe that environmental considerations must not be allowed to spoil the Channel tunnel project. It is my contention that it is possible to bridge the gap between the two and that they are not mutually exclusive.
As a member of the Standing Committee I came into the discussions rather later than some hon. Members, but I quickly came into the arguments about Shakespeare cliff, and it is to that site that I want to direct my remarks.
Members who have not been to the Shakespeare cliff site may find it helpful if I remind them of the fact that it is also known as the Old Colliery site. Coal has been mined in that area since 1890. The original cliff is not that which nature provided but that which was created by the blasting for the railway in the 1840s. A visit to the site will convince most Members that the claims made by some opponents of the scheme that this is one of the more beautiful parts of the United Kingdom can be put to one side.
The platform that was created by the explosions of 1840 created an area stretching out to sea of some 150 m. The proposal to dump spoil on the site will enlarge that some 300 m out to sea. The view from the sea will not be affected, but the opportunity to create an area in that part of Kent for leisure activities should not be set aside lightly. The opposition to the project suggests that all spoil is bad wherever one puts it. The idea that it can be used to create a larger area where leisure pursuits can be followed is a point worth making in this debate, In Committee I suggested that the spoil might be moved to gravel pits around the south of England. At the time that seemed to be a good idea because of the business that it would bring to British Rail. It also seemed to be a good idea to fill in those concavities which litter the south of England.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that, despite his interpretation of the impact of the working platform and the proposed dump at Shakespeare cliff, the Government's own consultants, appointed to make an environmental appraisal of the submission by the various companies tendering for the Channel tunnel fixed link in relation to the issue of the Eurotunnel proposal to dump spoil at the base of Shakespeare cliff, said:
The further use of the lower Shakespeare Cliff site beyond that absolutely necessary for construction would give rise to major concern in terms of it effects upon both landscape and ecology.

Mr. Coombs: I entirely accept that that was the opinion of the consultants at that stage. It is reasonable to say that

one can take an alternative view of the matter. I do not regard the ecology of the area as being threatened by an enlargement of the platform. It has been there for 140 years, 150 m out to sea. I do not believe that enlarging the platform at this stage will ruin the ecology of the area, and it is reasonable to take the alternative point of view put forward by consultants who asked whether it would be necessary to move the spoil out of the area at all, and whether it would damage the environment of Kent or a larger part of the south of England by moving that large quantity of spoil around that area.
In the interests of brevity, I will merely make the observation that a look at the other site which is of serious consequence—Cheriton—would also show that it is not so likely to be devastated by the proposals of the scheme as many hon. Members have suggested. I will leave my remarks at that.
I turn to the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch). Eurotunnel obviously failed to provide him with the necessary information, because I have a brief on environmental considerations dated 15 December which runs to four pages. It says:
In the detailed construction memorandum…referred to in paragraph 128 of the Special Report of the Select Committee, Eurotunnel has stated that in recognition of the environmental qualities of this area of Kent, it will adopt measures from the outset to mitigate any adverse environmental impact that the construction operations will cause, and will further nature conservation interests, consistent with the need to maintain the construction programme and project viability.
That is a clear undertaking which we have every reason to think will be maintained.
Environmental protection is a matter for a practical process of discussion and negotiation. I do not believe that it has a place in the Bill regulating the project, and on that ground I regard the clause as unnecessary.

Mr. Roger Gale: I rise to express my shared concern with my hon. Friends from north-east Kent constituencies about the impact of the Channel tunnel on our area. My hon. Friend the Minister knows that I am particularly grateful to him not only for the courtesy and understanding that he has shown in frequently visiting north-east Kent but for the attention that he has paid to the infrastructure and to the concessions and help that he has managed to offer to date. I should like to think that when the final report of the impact study is available to us further measures will be taken to enable us to compete if we have to, as we would like to, with the Nord Pas de Calais region of France.
My thanks and my praise for the Minister's attitude do not extend to the attitude taken by Trans-Manche and Eurotunnel—[Interruption.] Despite the comments of Labour Members, I have a fairly great constituency interest in this; rather greater than some Labour Members. Opposition Members are well aware that hon. Members have a variety of duties.
Trans-Manche and Eurotunnel gave two undertakings early on that seem to be in any danger of being no longer honoured. The first relates to local employment. I use this simply as an example because it does not relate directly to the clause. It was an affront to the people of north-east Kent that Trans-Manche, when placing its advertisements for the first labour opportunities in the area, did not see fit to place those first in the local press. That created some scepticism and cynicism among those of our constituents who had hoped to be employed on the project.
There was not only a suggested undertaking, but what was tantamount to an undertaking in the early stages of the project that the construction accommodation would utilise the under-utilised hotel and guesthouse accommodation in the Isle of Thanet, Dover and Folkestone. I was concerned, as I know my hon. Friends were, to read the most recent report available of the consultative committee dated 17 December and to learn that the plans for a construction camp were going ahead, that any foreseeable future use for that camp as a modern hotel was apparently fading into the distance and that we were likely to be confronted with
a series of two-storey blocks of temporary buildings divided into small rooms, with separate shower/toilet blocks. Such buildings have an estimated life of about 10–15 years.
Speaking now totally on behalf of my own constituents, I say that it is a grave disappointment that the plans for
the utilisation of accommodation—the 1,000 bed-nights a week that we in Thanet can offer—are not being developed and that further acres of Kent land are likely to be used to build a temporary construction camp when we already have the accommodation available.
I urge my hon. Friend the Minister to use whatever influence he may be able to exert to ask the promoters to look yet again at these proposals to ensure that our accommodation is used and that not yet more land is wasted.

11 pm

Mr. Wolfson: I shall not detain the House for long, but I wish to make two points on this new clause. This gives me the opportunity to air once again the fact that the majority of my constituents are concerned about the pressures on the environment that they fear the Channel tunnel would bring. We are in a position to do something to limit those fears if the Government will make it clear that they are firmly behind—so far the indications have been that they are—the maintenance of the green belt and the structure plan and that, in addition, they will encourage Kent county council to make much more use of the opportunity that it has to restrict heavy traffic to larger roads.
It is interesting—because the Channel tunnel will bring us closer contacts with France—for those who have motored in France recently to see how many areas there are which carry general restrictions on heavy traffic, for instance during the night. Yet I find over and over again that there is great reluctance in our county, on the part of the county council and the police, to put restrictions on heavy traffic. That must be done for two reasons. The first reason is to make proper use of the developed road network that will exist by the time the Channel tunnel is completed. Here I also make a plea for confirmation from the Minister that the money to be made available for completion of the improved road network in Kent will be in place before the tunnel opens, rather than catching up afterwards, to limit the bad effects on the environment that increased traffic from the Channel tunnel would bring.
I also support the point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) in terms of weight restrictions on heavy lorries. I do not fall into the trap that the Minister fell into in arguing that heavier lorries mean fewer lorries. Experience has not shown that to be the case.
Finally, I hope too, that efforts will continue to encourage traffic to utilise the railways and that every

opportunity will be given to British Rail management, in whose court the responsibility is, for developing a positive approach to the opportunities that exist now for it to make full use of the Channel tunnel.

Mr. David Mitchell: I readily acknowledge the environmental sensitivities of this major project and thus appreciate the motivation behind these new clauses. I must say, however, that they are all, in my view, misguided.
To take new clause 4 first, it is of course important that the works should be carried out with due regard to wildlife, countryside and heritage matters. But the right approach is not a general duty but a specific provision.
To this end, we are providing in schedule 3 to the Bill for the Government's statutory advisers on environmental matters—the Countryside Commission, the Nature Conservancy Council and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission For England, or English Heritage—to be consulted by local planning authorities. Eurotunnel has also concluded a memorandum of agreement with the statutory environmental agencies and the Southern water authority on environmental matters.
My right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) and the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) drew particular attention Lo the movement of minestone.
I readily accept that that is an important issue. However, it is covered by the planning provisions in schedule 3 to the Bill, under which planning authority approval is required of
the means and routes by which any minerals, aggregates, bulk materials other than minerals or aggregates and tunnel lining segment…are to be transported to construction and storage sites.
The Select Committee rightly urged that Kent county council should exercise its powers to ensure that as few lorries as possible carry bulk materials by any road other than the M20 to the working sites. I think that it would be inappropriate to go beyond that.
We have always recognised the importance of the issue of spoil. New clause 6 requires an independent study to be carried out to determine the best means of disposing of surplus spoil. I note that the definition of "surplus" is widely drawn; it does not even accept the need for the expanded working platform at Shakespeare cliff. I have to say quite firmly that I believe that the Government have already in practice met the commitment that the clause seeks to impose.
Hon. Members will not be surprised when I say that all the leading alternative sites had technical difficulties, environmental drawbacks or both, and would have given rise to strong objections. What concerned the Government when they considered the practicability of moving the spoil to a site away from the foot of Shakespeare cliff were two major risk factors, which could have had an unquantifiable and unacceptable delaying effect on the construction of the tunnel. First, the essential continuous flow of spoil could be halted by technical problems or adverse weather conditions that interrupted the transportation operation. Secondly, under certain conditions the spoil could become virtually impossible to handle and thus very difficult to move.
I believe, therefore, that the decision is the right one. It is solidly based on substantial evidence from a variety of sources. I accept that the Select Committee had insufficient time to consider the volume of evidence. We


shall ensure that that is rectified when the Bill comes before the Select Committee in another place. I do not accept that a further study is necessary or helpful.
My hon. Friends the Members for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch), for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) and for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley), who spoke of his early days in the area—all expressed concern about the beauty of the environment of Kent being spoilt. I know that throughout the debate my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard) has, because of convention, sat silent. However, he has assiduously followed what has been happening and has, from time to time, had considerable impact behind the scenes in ensuring that the points that concerned his constituents were thoroughly examined by the Government and others with responsibility.
The concern for the hop gardens of Kent and the scenic beauty that will meet new arrivals was echoed by my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury in his fear that industrial and housing development would destroy the essential beauty of Kent, the flora and the fauna. He was worried that places such as the spot where Caesar Augustus stood near Canterbury and looked at the view would be destroyed for all time.
I understand my hon. Friend's worry, which is perfectly natural. However, he has overlooked the fact that, for the areas that are outwith the Bill, the local authorities will retain their planning powers. I am sure that neither Kent county council nor my hon. Friend's local council would give planning consent to something that would destroy the areas of particular beauty to which he has drawn attention.
On the environmental points that are within the Bill's compass, I draw my hon. Friend's attention to schedule 3, under which consultation must take place with the Nature Conservancy Council, the Countryside Commission and the Historic Buildings and Monuments Commission. Schedule 3(16) will, I think, give my hon. Friend the assurance that he seeks.
The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) deplored the idea of the Government going along with Shakespeare cliff as a site for depositing spoil. He described this as a surrender of national interests to the interests of Eurotunnel and worked himself up into a generous lather over it.
If one has a scruffy, abandoned colliery site at the foot of a cliff where hardly anybody can see it and one needs to enlarge that area substantially as the working platform for building the tunnel, there is common sense in extending that and in putting the rest of the spoil there, rather than spoiling other sites as well, since none of the sites is without some practical disadvantages.

Mr. Raynsford: I urge the Minister seriously to consider whether his hon. Friends representing constituencies neighbouring Shakespeare cliff would agree with his description of this historic part of our coastline as a scruffy colliery site. Does he agree that his independent consultants advised against further dumping on this site and that only Eurotunnel's consultants, who have a financial interest, recommended it?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman made all those points earlier and is now being tediously repetitive. Anybody who doubts that the existing site is exceedingly scruffy should go and look at it.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) said that the Government had commissioned consultants who had come forward with options. In fact, they came forward with a short initial study which had not gone in depth into all the points. Only later did some of the more detailed points come out. It must be remembered that the daily rate is about 14,000 tonnes. When one thinks of moving that lot by train to Lappel bank in my hon. Friend's constituency, one can imagine complaints being made about such work going on 24 hours round the clock and about the noise and vibration and so on.

Mr. Moate: rose—

Mr. Mitchell: If my hon. Friend wants to welcome such noise and vibration, I will give way to him.

Mr. Moate: My hon. Friend has been, unusually, guilty of a serious error. I specifically made the point that the advantage of using the Lappel bank, which is in need of reclamation, is that it could all be seaborne; it could be taken by barge from the works right round into the Medway estuary.

Mr. Mitchell: I apologise if I misunderstood my hon. Friend. But if he examines the weather conditions off Shakespeare cliff, he will find that for a substantial part of the year it would not be possible to barge off, and drilling under the sea cannot be stopped simply because there happens to be a storm on the sea. The option of which my hon. Friend speaks was examined and was found not to be practical. Moreover, when the spoil got to the Lappel bank site it would, in wet conditions, turn into sludge, and the normal process of extending the track on the to existing stuff that had been dumped could not proceed because it would be soft and the equipment would sink into the ground.
My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South raised questions about Dover council and somewhat changed his ground, from what he said in Committee upstairs about the revolt and non co-operation of village Hampdens, and I was glad tonight to hear him refer to that issue in more reasonable terms.
The Government introduced amendments to the planning clause of the Bill to give local planning authorities a considerable say in decisions affecting the tunnel works. We did so on the clear understanding that the local planning authorities would use their powers before and after Royal Assent in a responsible manner. We were reassured when the planning authorities concerned, including Dover district council, signed a memorandum of understanding with Eurotunnel promising a constructive approach during the design work on the scheme. That memorandum was presented to the Select Committee, together with the new planning clauses, as a package. I therefore regard the memorandum as a series of assurances to Eurotunnel, to the other planning authorities, to the Government and to the Select Committee.
Dover district council would be well within its rights if it rejected the Eurotunnel planning application for genuine planning reasons. However, as I said during the Committee, if it rejected the planning application simply because it opposed the project, that would be a breach of faith.

Mr. Aitken: How does my hon. Friend know on what basis the council rejected the plan?

Mr. Mitchell: I do not know on what basis the council rejected it, but I recall what my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South said in Committee when he praised the village Hampdens who had raised revolt because they were not prepared to co-operate with the Government or with Eurotunnel on the scheme.
My hon. Friend did modify his language earlier in the evening and I welcomed that moderation. I hope that his intervention now will display that moderation and cooperation.

Mr. Aitken: No—on the contrary, I am just about to revert to the inflammatory language. I regard the members of Dover district council as heroes because they stood up for a principle that is absolutely right. It had nothing to do with the ratting insinuations that my hon. Friend has misguidedly made. A few courageous people, not party to any agreement, said that putting an office complex and advertising hoardings on the top of one of the most beautiful landscape sites in England would be environmentally wrong. The council was right.

Mr. Mitchell: If there are genuine planning grounds for objecting to the scheme, Dover council is entirely within its rights. But if, as alleged by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South in Committee, the council was indulging in a revolt and a non-co-operation exercise against the whole project, it was breaching an agreement that was given by the council to the Select Committee.
I would be extremely reluctant to ask the House to undo the planning arrangements in the Bill. They give the local planning authorities considerable powers to protect local residents and to influence the final design of the project works. The new planning clause also meets the concerns raised by a number of other petitioners. The planning arrangements are built on mutual trust and if that trust is misplaced the whole edifice will inevitably fall.
I understand that there are strong feelings about the project in Dover but I am confident that the council will find, as the other authorities have done, that it is in the council's best interests and that of its ratepayers to work within the spirit of the memorandum of agreement.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham expressed concern about the tunnel generating more traffic on unsuitable roads. Tunnel or no tunnel, the amount of traffic on the roads will double by the end of the century. We are providing a three-lane motorway from the M25 right to the mouth of the tunnel. It would be extraordinary if a lorry driver sought to drive along the unsuitable byroads and lanes of Kent when he had the opportunity to use a three-lane motorway.
Like other hon. Members, I have lived and worked in Kent. I have toured all the parts that will be affected. The Government recognise the beauty of Kent and are committed to leaving existing safeguards intact. The areas that it is absolutely necessary to damage are defined in the Bill, and the Government have consulted their statutory advisers. On that basis, I believe that the House would be right to reject the amendment.

Mr. Snape: I think that the House will be disappointed with the tenor of the Minister's remarks.
Some Conservative Members who represent Kent have spoken at length, some passionately, and some both, about the desirability of preserving the flora and fauna of Kent

and they gave their support to this amendment. I do not think it is fair of the Minister to attack my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) for correctly pointing out that the land use consultants who recommended the use of the Shakespeare site were those appointed and paid for by the concessionaires. The Minister should abandon the rather scruffy brief with which he has detained the House for 15 minutes and answer some of the questions raised by hon. Members.

The Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. Douglas Hogg): He has.

Mr. Snape: Well he did not answer them satisfactorily. New clause 4, which the Minister described as "misguided", was described by the right hon. and learned Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) as imprecise. It is hardly the most violent new clause ever tabled in this or other debates. It states:
the appropriate Minister or Ministers shall have regard to the desirability of preserving natural beauty"—
not their natural beauty but the natural beauty of the county of Kent. It states that they
shall take into account any effect which the proposals would have
and that
the desirability of securing…the movement of minestone from sources in Kent shall, to the greatest extent practicable, be carried out by rail.
That is scarcely the most aggressive new clause to be tabled. It was carefully worded in my customary non-controversial way, the better, I should have thought, to appeal to the Minister.
My hon. Friends will be relieved to hear that I do not intend to refer to hon. Members' contributions. I issue a word of caution to the hon. and learned Member for Folkestone and Hythe (Mr. Howard), after listening to the hon. Member for Richmond and Barnes (Mr. Hanley) talk about the hon. and learned Member's constituency. I warn the hon. and learned Member to remember the gloomy aftermath of the hon. Gentleman's defeat at the next general election, that tonight we have heard the bid by the defeated ex-Conservative Member for Richmond and Barnes to take over those pastures in Kent where the hon. Gentleman was once photographed wearing only a vest. The photograph appeared in a colour magazine. He was not very old at the time—in fact, it was a baby contest.

Mr. Hanley: The hon. Gentleman should get his facts right. I won the beautiful baby contest, aged one, in Beaconsfield, and that is another seat that I desire.

Mr. Snape: If the hon. Gentleman desires Beaconsfield, he should use the photograph to which he has referred rather than the present-day one.
It was somewhat churlish, to say the least, of the Minister of State to reply as he did. I hope that those Conservative Members from Kent who spoke so passionately in favour of this fairly innocuous new clause will seize the opportunity to put their votes where their passion was a few minutes ago and will support the clause in the Division Lobby.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 90, Noes 151.

Division No. 78]
[11.22 pm


AYES


Adams, Allen (Paisley N)
Anderson, Donald


Aitken, Jonathan
Ashdown, Paddy


Alton, David
Barron, Kevin






Beckett, Mrs Margaret
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen N)


Bermingham, Gerald
Hughes, Sean (Knowsley S)


Boyes, Roland
Hughes, Simon (Southwark)


Bray, Dr Jeremy
Kirkwood, Archy


Brown, Gordon (D'f'mline E)
Leadbitter, Ted


Brown, Hugh D. (Provan)
Leighton, Ronald


Brown, R. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne N)
Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)


Caborn, Richard
Lofthouse, Geoffrey


Campbell-Savours, Dale
McDonald, Dr Oonagh


Carlile, Alexander (Montg'y)
McNamara, Kevin


Clark, Dr David (S Shields)
McWilliam, John


Clarke, Thomas
Marek, Dr John


Clay, Robert
Marshall, David (Shettleston)


Clelland, David Gordon
Martin, Michael


Clwyd, Mrs Ann
Maxton, John


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Michie, William


Coleman, Donald
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Corbett, Robin
Moate, Roger


Cunlitfe, Lawrence
Nellist, David


Davies, Ronald (Caerphilly)
O'Brien, William


Davis, Terry (B'ham, H'ge H'l)
Pendry, Tom


Deakins, Eric
Pike, Peter


Dewar, Donald
Powell, Raymond (Ogmore)


Dormand, Jack
Radice, Giles


Dubs, Alfred
Raynsford, Nick


Duffy, A. E. P.
Roberts, Allan (Bootle)


Eadie, Alex
Rogers, Allan


Evans, John (St. Helens N)
Ross, Ernest (Dundee W)


Fatchett, Derek
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Short, Ms Clare (Ladywood)


Fisher, Mark
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Forrester, John
Skinner, Dennis


Foster, Derek
Smith, C.(lsl'ton S &amp; F'bury)


Foulkes, George
Snape, Peter


Gale, Roger
Soley, Clive


George, Bruce
Spearing, Nigel


Godman, Dr Norman
Strang, Gavin


Hancock, Michael
Wallace, James


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Wardell, Gareth (Gower)


Haynes, Frank
Welsh, Michael


Holland, Stuart (Vauxhall)



Home Robertson, John
Tellers for the Ayes:


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Mr. Don Dixon and


Hoyle, Douglas
Mr. Allen McKay.




NOES


Alexander, Richard
Coombs, Simon


Amess, David
Cope, John


Ancram, Michael
Corrie, John


Atkins, Robert (South Ribble)
Couchman, James


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cranborne, Viscount


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Baldry, Tony
Douglas-Hamilton, Lord J.


Batiste, Spencer
Dover, Den


Bellingham, Henry
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Benyon, William
Evennett, David


Best, Keith
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Bevan, David Gilroy
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Biggs-Davison, Sir John
Forth, Eric


Blackburn, John
Franks, Cecil


Blaker, Rt Hon Sir Peter
Fraser, Peter (Angus East)


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Freeman, Roger


Bottomley, Peter
Galley, Roy


Bowden, Gerald (Dulwich)
Garel-Jones, Tristan


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Gow, Ian


Bright, Graham
Gower, Sir Raymond


Brinton, Tim
Greenway, Harry


Brittan, Rt Hon Leon
Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)


Brooke, Hon Peter
Ground, Patrick


Brown, M. (Brigg &amp; Cl'thpes)
Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)


Burt, Alistair
Hanley, Jeremy


Carlisle, Kenneth (Lincoln)
Hargreaves, Kenneth


Carlisle, Rt Hon M. (W'ton S)
Harris, David


Cash, William
Harvey, Robert


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Hawksley, Warren


Chapman, Sydney
Hayes, J.


Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)
Heathcoat-Amory, David


Clark, Sir W. (Croydon S)
Henderson, Barry


Clarke, Rt Hon K. (Rushcliffe)
Hicks, Robert





Hind, Kenneth
Mayhew, Sir Patrick


Hirst, Michael
Merchant, Piers


Hogg, Hon Douglas (Gr'th'm)
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Holland, Sir Philip (Gedling)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Holt, Richard
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hordern, Sir Peter
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Howard, Michael
Moore, Rt Hon John


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Morrison, Hon P. (Chester)


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Neale, Gerrard


Hubbard-Miles, Peter
Neubert, Michael


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Nicholls, Patrick


Jessel, Toby
Norris, Steven


Johnson Smith, Sir Geoffrey
Osborn, Sir John


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Page, Sir John (Harrow W)


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Page, Richard (Herts SW)


Key, Robert
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Percival, Rt Hon Sir Ian


Knight, Greg (Derby N)
Pollock, Alexander


Knight, Dame Jill (Edgbaston)
Powell, William (Corby)


Knox, David
Powley, John


Lang, Ian
Proctor, K. Harvey


Lawler, Geoffrey
Raffan, Keith


Lee, John (Pendle)
Rathbone, Tim


Leigh, Edward (Gainsbor'gh)
Rhodes James, Robert


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Lester, Jim
Rossi, Sir Hugh


Lightbown, David
Rowe, Andrew


Lilley, Peter
Ryder, Richard


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Shaw, Giles (Pudsey)


Lord, Michael
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lyell, Nicholas
Steen, Anthony


McCurley, Mrs Anna
Stewart, Allan (Eastwood)


Macfarlane, Neil
Thompson, Donald (Calder V)


MacKay, Andrew (Berkshire)
Wakeham, Rt Hon John


MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Wheeler, John


Maclean, David John
Whitfield, John


McLoughlin, Patrick
Wood, Timothy


McQuarrie, Albert
Yeo, Tim


Major, John
Young, Sir George (Acton)


Malins, Humfrey



Malone, Gerald
Tellers for the Noes:


Marshall, Michael (Arundel)
Mr. Michael Portillo and


Maude, Hon Francis
Mr. Tony Durant.


Maxwell-Hyslop, Robin

Question accordingly negatived.

New Clause 8

CONCESSIONAIRES TO BE MANAGED AND OWNED BY EEC NATIONALS

'(l) Subject to subsection (2) below, the Secretary of State shall by order made by statutory instrument make provision for prohibiting—

(a) any person from holding the office, or exercising the functions of, Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Chief Executive of the Concessionaires or any of the Concessionaires; or— [Mr. Aitken.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Mr. Aitken: I beg to move, That the clause be now read a Second time.
The new clause seeks to safeguard the public interest against unwelcome and hostile changes to the financial and managerial control of the Channel tunnel. This is an important issue, which evidently worries the present so-called management of Eurotunnel because it suggests on page 9 of its prospectus the introduction of legislative changes that are similar to those proposed in the new clause. Unfortunately, however, the British Government, probably because of their ambivalent and doubtful ideology about the free-market purity of the Channel tunnel, have so far declined to tackle this issue. However, that must be tackled soon, because it is now public


knowledge that Eurotunnel is already embroiled in what I suspect will be the first of several power struggles for the control of its management.
I shall refer in a moment to the devastating series of newspaper articles with headlines such as "Chunnel group in crisis", which was on the front page of today's Daily Telegraph, "Chunnel's new blow" on the front page of the business news section of The Sunday Times last week, and "Future of Channel Tunnel chief in doubt" from yesterday's Financial Times. The gist of those articles is that the chairman of Eurotunnel, Lord Pennock, apparently wants to go, his self-designated successor, Sir Nigel Broackes, is allegedly disenchanted and would like to resign from the board, and there is general turmoil, chaos and a crisis of leadership within the company. That is hardly the sort of boardroom harmony that one expects from a group which is passing the hat round to raise a mere £750 million from the market in a few months.
However, after all those surprises and even a number of threats, the two full pages of Eurotunnel advertisements that were scattered like expensive confetti through every national newspaper in the country, could not prevent the embarrassing revelations from appearing in print.
Whatever the boardroom row really means—I shall suggest later that it is immensely significant—one thing is crystal clear: far from being the solid, reliable blue-chip institution which it likes to portray itself as in its £10 million advertising campaign, in reality, Eurotunnel is a deeply divided organisation that is plagued by internal dissension, defections and public doubts. Those doubts centre on Eurotunnel's ability to manage the Channel tunnel and to ensure its future financial viability.
There are also grave doubts about the sources of finance for this gargantuan project. If those sources exist at all beyond the rather sorry-looking group of construction companies and other punters who, after a long struggle and severe flagellation from the Governor of the Bank of England, have literally scratched together the initial £206 million of equity for this £5 billion project, according to Eurotunnel's own prospectus most of the rest of the money will come from Japanese, far eastern, middle eastern, African and other Francophone sources.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Is my hon. Friend suggesting that the Governor of the Bank of England who, of course, has enormous influence and pressure in financial markets, was actually putting pressure on, or twisting the arms of, organisations to get them to find money for the project against their commercial judgment? Surely my hon. Friend is not suggesting such a scandalous activity on the part of the Governor of the Bank of England?

Mr. Aitken: The Governor of the Bank of England is a very fine lord lieutenant of Kent, but I must say that his activities in regard to the funding of Eurotunnel are those of a hyperactive gentleman. Frankly, I have been amazed by his role so far. One of the purposes of my speech will be to suggest that no such role should be played by any official in high places, or by the Governor of the Bank of England in future.
Anyway, with the help of the Governor of the Bank of England, Eurotunnel scratched together the first £206 million, which leaves a mere 96 per cent. of the necessary funds still to be raised.
I shall turn later to the sources of funding for Eurotunnel, because at this stage I should like to make

only one preliminary point. It is absolutely vital for the House to understand the importance of the little-noticed clause 32 of the concessional agreement which the Government signed with Eurotunnel on 1 March 1986—incidentally, without any debate in this House. Under that agreement, the Franco-Arabian-African multinational banks, who are putting up at least £4 billion of the money, are given the automatic right to take over the management of the Channel tunnel in what I regard as the highly predictable event of the much smaller sums of equity investment proving inadequate.
Against that background it is not necessary to be labelled a little Englander to have some doubts about whether it is wise to allow a strategic artery of our national communications with Europe—that is how the optimists see it—to be financed in the way that I have described without any safeguards by the potential owners' consortium of 40 multinational banks and investment houses, only two of which are British.
If, instead of the Anglo-French Channel tunnel that we were promised, we end up with what I think will he a Franco-Arabian-African-Japanese tunnel, with, for all we know, the future financial equivalents of Ivan Boesky or Adnan Khashoggi in control of it, let us write into the Bill safeguards that will protect the management and the corporate structure of the company for the benefit of the public interest.
The Channel tunnel has so far proved to be an unloved project, both politically and financially. Politically, even the most ardent tunneller would have to admit that the public reaction to the Chunnel has been at best lukewarm and at worst downright hostile. Yet despite this widespread public and political scepticism, a French President and a British Prime Minister who are sadly infected with the statesman's disease of monumentitis, and a Government majority of 140 in the House, mean that the reality is that the Bill will receive its Third Reading tonight. But it will not be all over bar the shouting. Leaving aside the near certainty of a sticky passage in another place, the real battlefield on which the future of the Channel tunnel will be decided will be in the financial arena and not at Westminster.
In financial terms, Eurotunnel is entering a different and much more desperate ball game. Everyone knows that the Chunnel's fate will be decided by international financiers and not by domestic politicians. Before we consider what safeguards should be written into the Bill it is important to glance at the history and the prospects of the money and management of the Channel tunnel.
The founding shareholders of Eurotunnel, who put up about £43 million, were a group of Anglo-French joint venturers, or joint adventurers, the founders being dominated by construction companies, especially French companies. It is unusual for construction companies to be the founding and dominant shareholders in a project in which they hope to obtain large contracts to be paid for by other shareholders.
The flavour of the construction companies' intentions were rather well summarised by Mr. Francis Bouyges of the Bouyges Construction Company. Mr. James Sherwood, who was then in dialogue with Mr. Bouyges about a rival consortium, wrote a letter on 2 June 1986 which read:


Shortly before the concession was granted, Mr. Francis Bouyges, the spokesman for the French contractors, said to me 'Mr. Sherwood, you have no idea what enormous profits exist in this project for the construction companies'.
The ambiguous and somewhat avaricious role of the construction companies as founding shareholders was one reason why Eurotunnel found the next and rather small tranche of equity fund-raising so difficult. Equity 1 was the petty cash for the project and equity 2 was the seed money for it. Those efforts have so far raised £206 million of equity, and although that sounds a large sum it is a mere 4 per cent. of the £5,000 billion of equity and loans that the Channel tunnel project needs.
Equity 2 was a public relations disaster for Eurotunnel. The financial press used words such as "fiasco", "desperate scramble", "a rescue from the brink of collapse" and "a shambles" to describe the extraordinary story of missed deadlines, postponements, emergency flights to Paris by bankers and the involvement of Downing street and the Bank of England.
To summarise the position of equity 2, I can do no better than to read from an article about which my hon. Friend the Minister of State is sensitive. In fact, it is rather favourable to the Channel tunnel. I refer to the article which appeared in the remarkably well informed Contract Journal on 20 November 1986 under the headline "Treading water in the City". The relevant extract reads as follows:
When the curtain sticks and the leading actor forgets his lines at the dress rehearsal, it does not necessarily mean that the first night is going to be a disaster. But backers get the jitters and start examining contracts for escape clauses.
Something of the sort has happened to Eurotunnel, whose efforts to raise £70 million in the City last month very nearly ended in embarrassing failure.
Raising £70 million in the UK towards the £206 million second tranche resulted in public humiliation for the financial team which apportioned how much cash Eurotunnel should try to raise in the UK and how much in other leading international markets.
On reflection, the United Kingdom application was overoptimistic. For, while France romped home with its £70 million of shares, and Japan and America stumped up, the UK operation was whipped to the finishing post by the Bank of England, reportedly at the behest of Mrs. Thatcher, who cracked the whip in the City for the last £10 million.

Mr. Rowe: I realise that I know a great deal less about the Arab financial world than my hon. Friend, but does it not strike him as ironic that he should quote the private notes of an American president of the company that runs a large slice of what he would undoubtedly describe as a national asset in order to rubbish a scheme that is at present trying to raise money on the international markets?

Mr. Aitken: I do not know what my hon. Friend is talking about. I cannot quite follow his point. I was making my own speech and quoting from the Contract Journal, which is actually a quite well-known public magazine.

Mr. Rowe: Perhaps my hon. Friend will allow me to explain. My hon. Friend earlier quoted from what must have been the notes belonging to Mr. James Sherwood, an American citizen running a British ferry company, which is surely a national asset.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend seems a little sensitive about this. Mr. Bouyges and Mr. Sherwood are well-known public figures who were at one stage nearly partners together. Correspondence was exchanged between them. Mr. Sherwood wrote a letter which has been circulating around dozens of people and that is the letter from which I have quoted. I do not regard that letter as private notes, as it has been in circulation for some time.
Whatever went on between the various tycoons, the House should focus on the really bizarre nature of this fund raising in the United Kingdom for equity 2. After all—

Mr. Ian Gow: Would my hon. Friend remind the House that the baronet, my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) writes for the very journal to which my hon. Friend has referred? Is it true that my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton wrote the article from which my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) has quoted? Or did Dr. Johannes Witteveen write the article?

Mr. Aitken: I hesitate to invoke the name of the good doctor, who I think is innocent in this matter. The truth is that, apart from having a vast team of research assistants at my disposal, the devastating quotation came from the magazine Contract Journal. My hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) passed me a copy of that magazine when he was trying to draw my attention to an article on pedal cycles. He was not the author of the article, but he was the source of the copy. He was as innocent as that. He simply passed me the copy of the magazine as he wanted to draw my attention to an article on pedal cycles.
However, I seized on that quotation which summarises the bizarre nature of the fund raising in equity 2. It really does sound very strange. It was the greatest project of all time, according to its backers. Britain was trying to raise a mere £70 million, yet even that limited target could be raised only after whips had been cracked and arms twisted, No. 10 Downing street had been brought into the fray and that great and good man the Governor of the Bank of England had been required to stop regulating the City and chasing the members of Guinness in order to pass around the hat on Eurotunnel's behalf.
Sir Nigel Broackes was the arch-enemy of Eurotunnel in the past, but he was brought on to the board—again, apparently, on the instruction of the Governor of the Bank of England. The only person who was left out of this frantic whip round was the Secretary of State for Transport. I suspect that he and his Ministers of State were omitted so that they could pop up and deny any suggestion that the Department had ever been involved in any of these activities. That is why they come to the Dispatch Box Question Time after Question Time saying that they cannot possibly answer any questions about Eurotunnel because that has nothing to do with them even though it has a lot to do with the Bank of England and everyone else.

Mr. Raynsford: At least they did not send in the Special Branch.

Mr. Aitken: They did not send in the Special Branch. We were spared that.
The odd thing is that we have been continually told that the project has nothing to do with the Government. We have been told that it is a free market project which will be decided by market forces and that the Government will


stay at arm's length. The reality has been completely different. I believe that the Governor of the Bank of England will have cause to regret his direct involvement when the full facts come out or if the rest of the money is not raised and those who put in the £206 million lose their shirts.
Some of the truth is dribbling out. On 8 December 1986, the back page of the Financial Times carried a well-informed story by Andrew Taylor under the heading:
Founding shareholders help Eurotunnel to meet funding target.
The article said:
'Eurotunnel did not expect the founding shareholders to participate in the October issue.
In other words, the construction companies were anxious not to have to put their hands into their own pockets. The article revealed:
the struggle that, the Anglo-French Channel tunnel consortium had in raising £206 million in an international share placing at the end of October is underlined by a full list of subscribers to the issue. It shows that Eurotunnel would have fallen short of its target by at least £12 million if the founding banking and construction shareholders had not decided to increase their stake in the venture. Total purchases either directly or indirectly by the founding shareholders totalled more than £20 million.
As I have said before, that desperate operation reminded me of an old French proverb:
It is a sad woman who has to buy her own perfume.
It is a sad and sorry company which, having touted itself all over the world to find new shareholders, cannot find them and has to go back to an unwilling group of founding shareholders and persuade them to pony up for the shares that no-one else would buy.

Mr. David Mitchell: Just so that I understand the position, is my hon. Friend quoting from his speech in Committee? Is he reading Hansard or is he reading a newspaper?

Mr. Aitken: I am reading some of the same quotations, but that was a quotation from theFinancial Times. I am reading it for the benefit of the whole House.
While the traumatic difficulties were going on, the noble Lord Pennock was exuding confidence and optimism about financing the Channel tunnel. There was a quotation from Sir Robin Day's programme "The World at One", when all hon. Members were ticked off by Lord Pennock. He wished that Members of Parliament would stop mucking around with the Bill because he had got banks from all over the world ready to finance the project. That remark was justified. On page 63 of the rivetingly interesting prospectus put out by Eurotunnel, one finds the list of 40 international banks.
My hon. Friend the Minister was working from some other list, because he was able to reveal at an earlier stage in the proceedings that he knew something about a draft list of other bankers, including the European Investment Bank. I am basing my remarks on the printed prospectus which seems the most reliable source of information, since that is what has gone to shareholders. It lists the 40 international banks that have said that they are apparently willing to lend the £4 billion to Eurotunnel. The willingness to lend is subject to a mass of small print conditions that can be extremely easy to wriggle out of. Let us not cavil; the list of potential lenders is there.
The list of lenders is worrying, because the majority of the 40 banks are from outside the EEC. There are 14 Japanese banks that dominate the field, there are several

Arab banks and, apparently, even some African banks are willing to support the project. There are plenty of French banks, some of them are even state-owned banks or financial institutions. Those organisations know a good benefit match for the French state when they see one. The British banks are conspicuous by their absence. Of a total of 40 banks, only two are British. Only the National Westminster bank and the Midland bank are brave enough to join in the £4 billion financing project. A tiny slice of the action is going to Britain.
The British institutions, with the direct encouragement and advice of the Governor of the Bank of England, have been told that they should put their money into the equity of the Channel tunnel. That is why a rather artificially high figure of 43 per cent. of British construction companies at this moment own a very small amount of equity. But that situation could not possibly last. Therefore, as many institutions in the City of London were quick to spot, that advice to go into the equity of the Channel tunnel is likely to prove disastrously wrong. As I see it, the equity investors in the Channel tunnel are the equivalent of the first waves of infantrymen at the battle of the Somme. They will be wiped out. The reason they will be wiped out is that not to be wiped out requires, as the red Queen said in Alice in Wonderland, a belief in six impossible things before breakfast.
To give three of the impossible things that one has to believe before breakfast in order to believe that the equity investors will not be wiped out, one has first to believe that this project will be built on time and on budget, which is a triumph of hope over experience for any construction project of such size and scope and underwater difficulty that the world has ever seen.
Secondly, one has to believe that the figures in the Eurotunnel prospectus and its forecasts are going to come true. If I had to pick out just one statistic which makes me certain that the clock has struck 13, it is the figure which says that the Eurotunnel will capture 67 per cent. of the total car traffic market crossing the channel. That figure can only have been plucked out of the air by someone who has no understanding of the psychology of the English motorist—as indeed Eurotunnel shows by its remarkable advertisements placed at such great expense in the national papers. It pictures the Channel in the middle of a hurricane or a force 9 gale, with foaming billows, an albatross diving into the waves, thunder and lightning overhead. The inviting slogan is:
You will travel better when you are under the weather".
I am sure that is true in January and February, but the bulk, something like 80 per cent., of the cross-Channel holiday motoring market travels in June, July, August and September. The psychology of the British motorist is that he enjoys a touch of the briny and a bit of ozone to cross the Channel, especially if he can do it at a lower price.
That brings me to the third point. Another impossible thing one has to believe is that the Eurotunnel consortium will not be badly hurt by the inevitable price war. As soon as the tunnel opens, it is certain that the ferries, in a desperate effort to fight it off, will dip their prices sharply, which they are able to do, and which Eurotunnel is unable to do because it has to carry the heavy capital cost. In the short to medium term, we will see a price war on the Channel and enormous competition, which will result in the ferries doing quite well.
I am sure, unless I am very wrong, that we will see higher than expected construction costs. The possibility,


if not the probability, of the equity investors' funds proving inadequate, I suggest, is very high. What will happen when those equity investors' funds run out? Here we have to turn to clause 32 of the concession agreement, headed "Provisions relating to lenders". It goes on at some length and begins:
The parties to this agreement agree that the new Concessionaires shall be substituted for the initial Concessionaires in the following circumstances".
These new concessionaires are known as "substituted entities".
The substituted entities are, in a phrase, the lenders. This extraordinary concessional agreement gives virtually an automatic right for the banks to take over and run the whole project as the new management. There are grave dangers in this, because when the consortium just changes its whole nature then comprises not the original equity shareholders but the bankers, only two out of 40 of whom are British, Britain and even the EEC will end up having very small shares in this project, which will lead to managerial changes.
Managerial changes seem to be happening somewhat unwillingly in Eurotunnel at the present time. We have already seen a flood of the sort of "Broackes knifes Pennock" headlines—or is it vice versa—but this is going to be nothing to the shock-horror equivalent of the headline "Boesky and Khashoggi unite to double prices on the Chunnel", which we will see if the substitute entities, who will then be the owners, get together. Although some parts of my speech may seem like scaremongering talk, what I envisage is perfectly possible, given the strange financial structure and the concession agreement.
12 midnight
We have here a swaying house of cards over which Parliament and the Government have abandoned all control. The only people who recognise the real danger are the people in Eurotunnel who, in a whiff of panic, decided that they had better write something into the prospectus to cover them for this kind of eventuality. On page 9 of the prospectus there is a note which says:
Consideration is being given by the Governments to the introduction of powers which would be in addition to the existing powers under United Kingdom and French Law which could be embodied in a protocol to the treaty and empower the Governments, following ratification, to prevent any person holding the office or exercising the function of chairman, deputy chairman or chief executive who is not a national of a member state of the European Community and to prevent any person from acquiring by transfer or otherwise a beneficial interest of 20 per cent. or more of the voting capital of Eurotunnel.
Eurotunnel thought this thing through. It wants the safeguards. When I raised this matter in Committee the Minister of State at first denied that anyone had ever dreamed of such a scheme. After tremendous correction from the civil servants, he came back and said that they were thinking about it. I am pressing to have these thoughts clarified.
There is a genuine danger that the control of Eurotunnel, both managerial and financial, could shift dramatically away from anything envisaged at present. The Eurotunnel project is of strategic importance to Britain. Certain strategic industries, such as the television industry about which I know something, cannot change managements control or shareholdings without the consent of the governing body—in that case the IBA. In

the same way, some safeguards should be written into the Bill to prevent an effective financial or managerial takeover of the Channel tunnel.
Although I do not suppose that Eurotunnel will welcome every word that I have said in moving this new clause, it will see the wording of the clause as the first recorded example of co-operation between the Member for Thanet, South and Eurotunnel. That is because I am trying to write into the Bill exactly what sagacious businessmen who look ahead can see as a danger which needs to be headed off. I hope that the Government will accept the clause now or in the other place, because something like it has to be written into the Bill.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I listened with a great deal of interest and delight to the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), who moved the new clause. I am certain that many of his remarks about greedy, predatory construction companies and the disgraceful way in which private capital behaves will be abstracted, not from Hansard, because that would not be allowed, but elsewhere, and will appear in close terms from the election manifesto that I expect to produce in the near future. I have rarely heard in the House such a damning indictment of the way in which private companies operate, and to have it from the horse's mouth is absolutely delightful.
Much of what the hon. Gentleman said, especially his quotations from various newspapers, reminded me of quotations from the seedy saga of TV-am, of which I think the hon. Gentleman has some experience. We have to take it that he is speaking with some experience and some credibility. I quarrel with him on one point. He quoted Mr. Sherwood in aid. I know that what I am about to say may not be appreciated in all parts of the Committee, but Mr. Sherwood is not to be trusted as far as he can be thrown—which is not very far. He constantly parades himself as a defender of the ferry industry and many people are naive enough to believe him. He has damaged the ferries that he operates and his predatory activities have sacked more seamen than are likely to lose their jobs if and when the Channel tunnel goes ahead. Some care should be exercised about the sources of evidence.
The hon. Member, who moved the new clause, said very little about it. He constantly repeated—I shall not attempt to emulate his stage accent—various people and he constantly referred to African banks. What a terrible thing that African banks may have money which they wish to invest in Britain. He constantly mentioned Mr. Khashoggi and the fellow who has been suspended from the New York stock exchange as being people that we should be aware of. I am afraid that the hon. Gentleman let himself down tonight. Although he said that he did not want to be described as a little Englander, the whole of his speech was chauvinistic and disparaging of foreigners in a manner that I regret.
I do not understand what the hon. Gentleman is saying about lenders taking over the tunnel. Once the initial capital is raised the tunnel will be built. The company will not go bankrupt in the process of building the tunnel. It may run into difficulties once it is up and running. If the traffic forecasts are not up scratch it will lose money. Presuming the tunnel is built, if, as the hon. Gentleman suggests, the ferry companies sharply reduce their prices to keep their trade, it is possible that Eurotunnel will go bankrupt. What will then happen if these mysterious and sinister foreign bankers take over? What will they do to


affect our strategic link with Europe? Is it as the hon. Gentleman suggests? Will they shut it down? If they take it over they will try to make a success of it. The hon. Gentleman says that they will double the prices. They will not double the prices if, because the company has not previously collected enough revenue it has gone bankrupt. They may—I accept that this is a danger—try to use predatory pricing to drive the ferries out of business.
The logic does not stand up. Eurotunnel will go bankrupt only if the ferries are still thriving. It cannot go bankrupt if the ferries go out of business because it will have a monopoly of the trade. The logic in the hon. Gentleman's scenario does not add up.
The hon. Gentleman suggests that there is the possibility of a price war. We have suggested on many occasions that there ought to be a mechanism to act swiftly to prevent a price war, which would have disastrous effects on the ferries, or indeed on the tunnel if it is built and operating. We should set up an office of Channel fair trading which would be specifically charged with acting speedily and directly on prices and competition. We believe that the existing mechanisms for dealing with unfair competition take too long to deal with the problem. Therefore, there should be one specific body to deal directly with it. That would be a better way to go about it.
On the face of it, new clause 8 has some attractions in that only a national of a member state of the European Community can be chairman of the company. The hon. Gentleman made disparaging remarks about the French, so I do not think that he would welcome a French chairman. I do not think that this new clause provides the sort of security for 10 years ahead—which is about the time that we are speaking of—if the hon. Gentleman accepts my logic, which I do not think he does. It does not provide the sort of protection that is desirable to make sure that there is proper competition, that the ferries are not driven out of business, and that we renew our flexibility with regard to our communications with Europe.
In the face of what I have heard so far, I am not persuaded by any manner of means by the speech made by the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: For the first time in these proceedings I am not entirely at one with my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), because it would be unfortunate for the operation of the tunnel, if it proceeded, if someone was barred from the job of chief executive simply because he was a Swiss, an Australian or an American. It would be unfortunate if we were to deny someone a job on merit because of his nationality.
My hon. Friend has given us some horrifying information about the present financial position and prospects of the tunnel. I want to ask my hon. Friend the Minister one basic question. There has been a major change from the situation when we were told that investors were queueing up to invest in the tunnel to the present situation, particularly after equity 2, when it seems we came close to total financial disaster. The £206 million was not raised easily. The investors were not queueing up and the Minister must be aware that there were postponements on what is a relatively minor sum in comparison with the whole operation.
That should not surprise us. Many documents have been referred to, but the most interesting and authoritative was the five banks' review, in which two of our joint stock

banks participated and in which it was made abundantly clear that they thought that it was virtually impossible for the project to proceed unless some guarantee was given by the Government or some public authority for the borrowings, and that is what the Government have, rightly, set themselves against.
My basic question, which is relevant to the new clause, is: could the Minister tell us, and particularly the investing public, what happens if, as seems likely, the £750 million, which I believe is the sum involved in equity 3, does not come forward within the required time scale? The Minister will be well aware that institutions have shied away from equity investment in the project. Quite apart from all the arguments across the Floor, my hon. Friend the Minister will be aware that it was a difficult job to get that. Some of us will have been horrified to have heard the suggestion that the Governor of the Bank of England had to twist arms. I know nothing about that, but I think that my hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware that it was difficult to get the investors in the institutional network to give a relatively small sum which, in Britain's case, was about £70 million. That is peanuts for our institutions. In insurance companies, unit trusts and other such organisations huge sums are available and they obviously did not like the idea of an equity stake in this operation.
Now we are going to the general public who are not, as some people think, silly people. They know a good investment when they see one and they know a rotten investment when they see one. They put their money into offers such as TSB and British Gas because they considered, rightly, that those were good sensible investments for their savings.
The Minister will be well aware that bearing in mind that investors could lose all I heir money that they would certainly not get any return for at least seven years and that the whole project is not regarded as sound by the institutional investors, it is pretty clear that the investing public, the kind of people who invest £500 or £1,000 in a project, will not look eagerly at this despite the flood of advertising.
Will the Minister tell us, and thereby tell the investing public, what will happen if the £750 million is not raised? Will the project come to a complete end so that everything stops, and, sadly, the institutions will lose the £206 million that they have already invested in equity? Or will some other device be found within the framework of the legislation to carry it forward?
Frankly, I was horrified when it was explained earlier by my hon. Friend the Minister that public funds would be used for the project through the European Investment Bank in which the Government have no direct responsibility. They certainly are because, as my hon. Friend the Minister will be well aware, the autumn statement made it abundantly clear that this year the British Treasury is giving £48 million to the European Investment Bank from taxpayers' funds. He also knows that the bank has a board of management consisting only of the finance Ministers of member states. He knows that this is a European institution which is designed. as its prospectus says, to give loans at attractive rates of interest guaranteed by the funds of member states and the sums are borrowed on the basis of the security of member states.
If the £750 million is not raised, will money be provided by organisations such as the EIB, or will money be provided from foreign banks or foreign investors? The investing public, to whom the Government have been fair


in their privatisation project, are entitled to know simply what the score is. In other words, if they put in the £750 million they know that the project will go ahead so long as the loan can be secured. That is clear.
What we are entitled to know is what happens if the £750 million is not raised. Does that mean that the project stops or is some other device found to put the cash in? Our understanding in the past was always that a crucial element to progress was the raising of £750 million from the general public.
Therefore, I hope that the Minister will answer what I think is a simple question in a complicated financial situation. The investing public is entitled to an answer because I have a genuine fear that many investors, people with limited savings, are in danger of losing a lot of their money or of putting their money at unreasonable risk. They are entitled to simple information on what the procedure will be if they do not put their money into this project.
12.15 am

Mr. David Mitchell: Those who served on the Standing Committee will have been familiar with the rather tired record that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) played about the Franco, Arabian, Japanese tunnel. We heard it to the point of tedious repetition. He also made references to the difficulties of Eurotunnel in raising equity. It was a remarkable performance for Eurotunnel to raise that money against a background of no measure on the statute book, the concession agreement not in operation and a unique and expensive knocking campaign mounted by competitors and their mouthpieces.
I wonder how my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South would like it if TV-am were raising extra capital on the stock exchange or from its bankers and the BBC ran a knocking campaign of his company designed to undermine the creditworthiness of his operation and to destroy his ability to compete in the market. In short, I wonder whether he would ponder on the business ethics of Flexilink and its spokesmen in using the passage of legislation through this House to try to undermine a new competitor at its birth.

Mr. Aitken: I deprecate the references to Flexilink's ethics which have been totally above board, but if I was by any chance raising a capital sum on the stock market for any business of mine I would certainly welcome the support of the Government and the Bank of England and I would welcome my hon. Friend the Minister as spokesman as I am sure that he would do a good job and would completely destroy any enemy propaganda which all businessmen are used to anyway.

Mr. Mitchell: Business men are not used to the sort of wholesale advertising on the scale which has been indulged in by opponents of this legislation.
My hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) should not be frightened by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. I warn him of the dangers of listening too carefully to the flights of fantasy of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South which tend to divorce themselves from reality. The matter for the House is to pass legislation to facilitate the tunnel. The matter of

raising finance is for Eurotunnel and not for the Committee. The amendment sets out to control the nationality of senior officers of the concessionaires.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Surely this project has a structure set out under which we understood that £750 million equity was an integral part. That, I understood, was a requirement of the Government. Surely the Minster can say what would happen if the money was not raised from the general public. Is not that a simple request to make?

Mr. Mitchell: We have made it clear on numerous occasions that it is up to the promoters to raise the money and to set out their stall to do so. If they do not succeed in raising it, the Government will not put money into the project. That is the position as stated repeatedly on previous occasions. It is no different now. This amendment sets out to control—

Mr. Robert Hughes: The hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) is entitled to a straight answer. He wants to know whether, if Eurotunnel does not raise the money, the project stops until presumably some new consortium has to negotiate a new concession agreement. In other words, if the money is not raised, the tunnel will not be built.

Mr. Mitchell: Within the confines of the paramaters that the hon. Gentleman has drawn, he is correct. Of course, there may be other sources, but I am not in a position to comment on that. It is entirely a matter for the promoters. It would be wrong for the Government to give what would be, in effect, a letter of comfort. We have said all along that this is a private sector operation, and the matter of raising money is for the promoters, not for the Government.

Mr. Hughes: Am I right in my contention that, if Eurotunnel cannot raise the money, that is the end of the matter? However, if a new consortium put up a new proposition and could raise the money, would a new concession have to be signed?

Mr. Mitchell: I hesitate to give an answer at 12.20 am on a matter that needs careful thought. I think that the hon. Gentleman is right, but I shall write to him and put the matter beyond a peradventure.
The new clause sets out to control the nationality of senior officers of the concessionaires and to limit the acquisition of large shareholdings by individuals who were not nationals of the European Community. It has a number of technical deficiencies—for example, the term "person" in a statute includes legal person, unless otherwise stated, and would catch companies, including the concessionairies' holding companies Eurotunnel plc and Eurotunnel SA. The implication of persons and nationals seems to conflict with that. There is a whole series of other technical defects in the new clause.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) rightly drew attention to the non-logic of the case of my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South. The Arabs and the Japanese investors are hardly going to dig up the tunnel and take it to the middle or far east. I am not sure that my hon. Friend has been able to define the alleged damage that such investors might do.
In Committee I said that we were considering with the French Government and the concessionaires whether there should be additional safeguards to ensure that the management of the concessionaires did not fall into


undesirable hands. If this consideration shows that some restriction is necessary, and that an amendment to the Bill is required to implement it, the Government will introduce such an amendment in another place.
On that basis, I invite the House to reject the amendment should my hon. Friend not feel able to withdraw it.

Mr. Aitken: My hon. Friend's closing words were a gracious sign that the points that I have sought to make were, at least to some extent, valid, even though he quarrelled with certain issues. Indeed, I was convinced by the valid point made by my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) that it would be wrong to exclude for all time, under all circumstances, someone such as a Canadian managing director—

Mr. Teddy Taylor: He might be a French-Canadian.

Mr. Aitken: Indeed, and then we could compromise.
It has been a useful exercise for the House to understand some of the financial problems inherent in this basically unsatisfactory financial structure. I have made my speech and I will not elaborate on the points further.
I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn

Clause 1

CONSTRUCTION AND OPERATION OF A TUNNEL RAIL LINK BETWEEN THE UNITED KINGDOM AND FRANCE

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 1, in page 2, line 34, leave out 'section' and insert 'Act'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): With this we shall discuss Government amendment No. 2.

Mr. Mitchell: Both amendments are drafting improvements consequential on other amendments made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to

Amendment made: No. 2, in page 3, line 12, leave out subsection (10).—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 2

No GOVERNMENT FUNDS OR GUARANTEES FOR THE TUNNEL SYSTEM

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 16, leave out 'for the benefit' and insert
'relating to the performance of any obligations'.
No. 4, in page 3, line 19, leave out
'or guarantees of any description within that subsection'
and insert
'to the Concessionaires, or the provision of guarantees relating to the performance of any of their obligations, if they are provided'.
No. 5, in page 3. line 21, leave out 'power' and insert
'a power or imposing a duty'.
No. 6, in page 3, line 28, leave out from beginning to 'to' in line 40 and insert—
(3) Where anything in contravention of subsection (1) above is done or proposed by or on behalf of a Minister of the Crown or Government department, any person who has suffered, or may suffer, loss in consequence of it may bring an action against the Minister or department concerned:—/Mr. David Mitchell.]

Clause 14

CONTRACT LAW AND ARBITRATION LAW

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 32, in page 12, line 32, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3)(a) below,'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall discuss Government amendments Nos. 33 to 37.

Mr. Mitchell: This amendment appears substantial but in fact merely reflects a change in the presentation of certain provisions for the purposed arbitration agreement between the British and French Governments and the concessionaires.

Amendment agreed to

Amendments made: No. 33, in page 12, line 43, leave out
'Without prejudice to subsection (1) above,'.
No. 34, in page 12, line 45, leave out
'arbitration, nothing in Part I of the Arbitration Act 1950 or in the Arbitration Act'
and insert
'the arbitral tribunal—

(a) the provisions of Part I of the Arbitration Act 1950 and the Arbitration Act 1979 specified in subsection (3A) below shall apply in relation to that agreement or lease, or to the enforcement of an award on that agreement or lease, subject to the modifications specified in that subsection and except so far as excluded by, and subject to any modifications contained in, the agreement or lease or any provision of the international arrangements; but
(b) without prejudice to subsection (1) above, no other provision of Part I of the Act of 1950 or the Act of'.

No. 35, in page 12, line 47, leave out 'any such' and insert 'that'.
No. 36, in page 13, line 2, at end insert—

'(3A) The provisions are—
 (a) section 4(1) of the Act of 1950 (staying court proceedings on matters subject to arbitration) with the substitution of the words "shall make an order staying the proceedings" for the words from "if satisfied" to the end;
(b) section 26 of that Act (enforcement of arbitration award by court); and
(c.) section 2 of the Act of 1979 (determination by court of preliminary point of law arising on arbitration) with—
(i) the omission of the words "Subject to subsection (2) and section 3 below", in subsection (1) and of subsection (2); and
(ii) the substitution of the words "with the consent of the arbitral tribunal" for paragraphs (a) and (b) of subsection (1);
and any other provisions of Part I of the Act of 1950 or the Act of 1979 so far as affecting the operation of the provisions mentioned in any of paragraphs (a) to (c) of this subsection.
No. 37, in page 13, line 3, at beginning insert
'Subject to subsection (3)(a) above and'.
—[Mr. David Mitchell]

Clause 16

SUPERVISION BY INTERGOVERNMENTAL COMMISSION AND SAFETY AUTHORITY

Mr. Teddy Taylor: I beg to move amendment No. 7. i n page 14, line 20 at end insert—
'(e) to require the operation of procedures of inspection of vehicles entering the tunnel to ensure that the safety of the tunnel and of persons entering it is secured.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient to consider at the same time the following amendments:


No. 28, in page 14, line 25, at end insert
'and in respect of safety, it shall be the duty of the Concessionaires to submit to the Safety Authority detailed proposals for the transport of vehicles through the tunnel system both involving drivers and passenger being aggregated from vehicles, and drivers and passengers remaining within their vehicles, so that the Safety Authority may reach a decision as to which affords the most effective safeguards against fire and other accidents and best protects the safety of persons travelling through the tunnel system'.
No. 8, in page 14, line 29, at end insert—
'(5A) Notwithstanding anything in the international arrangements a supervisory body may give such directions as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling that body to consider whether the interests of safety would be enhanced by ensuring that on shuttle trains road vehicles are conveyed separately from their occupants.'.

Mr. Taylor: I raise here one aspect of the broad issue of security. Strong fears have been expressed by the Fire Brigades Union and others about the safety implications of tunnel operations. I trust that the Minister will study with care the papers that have been carefully prepared by the Fire Brigades Union.
Would the Government consider it reasonable to take powers to require the operation of procedures of inspection of vehicles entering the tunnel to ensure the safety of the tunnel and persons in it? In an effort to obtain information on this issue, I wrote to Lord Pennock, chairman of Eurotunnel, about the checking of vehicles entering the tunnel. I took the view before writing that if every vehicle was to be carefully searched—or X-rayed in the same way as happens to luggage at airports—the operation of the tunnel would be a slow business indeed. How could trains move quickly if each vehicle had to be inspected carefully?
On the other hand, if every vehicle was not to be inspected carefully, it seemed there would be an appalling risk of a dreadful disaster. The right hon. Member for the Western Isles (Mr. Stewart) has talked about the tunnel becoming the longest crematorium in Europe. The Minister will be aware of what could happen if one mad person, representing some terrorist organisation and anxious to draw attention to his cause, caused an explosion in the tunnel. There are other problems, such as gas appliances in caravans. Does the Minister think that every vehicle should be inspected? If so, how could that be done consistent with a reasonable flow of traffic?
Lord Pennock sent me a speedy and courteous reply. I wrote saying that I had received a great deal of information—he had issued it to the press—about the comprehensive measures that would be taken to ensure the maximum security and how, to that end, no stone would be left unturned. But I pointed out that I was still in the dark about what would happen to vehicles.
He replied that there was a possibility of a machine being devised into which a car could be placed, rather in the way cases are examined at airports. Sadly, he told me, such a machine had not yet been invented. He thought the operation of the tunnel would encourage manufacturers to invent such a device. In short, at present there is no such device available, although we are going ahead with the tunnel.
I appreciate that the Minister cannot go into the full details of security and that in any case he would not wish to reveal such information to people who might contrive to abuse admission to the tunnel. But the general public

are entitled to an answer to the simple question whether every vehicle will be inspected thoroughly. If not, would there not be a terrible danger, as a result of perhaps one or two people wishing to draw attention to their cause, of it being blown up? If the Minister says that every vehicle will be inspected how will that be done when no machine or mechanism has yet been invented to do the job? It is a cause for public concern.
12.30 am
I know that the Minister is an enthusiast for the tunnel and I know that he is well aware that there are some people who do not mind going in a tunnel under a mountain but who are worried about going in a tunnel under the sea. Undoubtedly, there will be some consumer resistance although it may be of a limited nature.
Before the Government proceed with the project the public would like an answer to the basic question. Will every vehicle be X-rayed and searched? If so how? If that is not done how will the Government ensure there is proper security?

Mr. Terry Fields: I do not think that there will be many people in Liverpool sitting up, sleepless, worrying about the Channel tunnel. The figure of £750 million has been bandied about, and that would assist Liverpool city council to continue with its house building programme for the next 12 years and thus keep jobs and services in the city of Liverpool.
I do not wish to make a contribution from a constituency angle but rather as someone who has spent 26 years in the fire service. For most of that period I was active in the Fire Brigades Union as a member of the National Joint Council of Local Authority Fire Brigades and a member of the central Fire Brigades Advisory Council for England and Wales. I am not sponsored by the Fire Brigades Union, but with that background and experience and the fact that I am still a member of that union, I have a duty and responsibility, in the absence of a forum for firemen to raise objections—they have a long, heroic history of preserving and protecting life in Britain—to raise objections on behalf of that organisation.
The Fire Brigades Union, along with other organisations, wish to object to the building of the tunnel. However, be that as it may, I am sure that the Bill will go through tonight. In that event, the union wishes to express concern about the tremendous lack of safety for people using the tunnel. In the event of some catastrophe, it is the fire fighters who will have to go into the tunnel to protect people.
The role of the Fire Brigades Union with regard to legislation covering health, safety and protection of the public goes back a long way. It has contributed to legislation dealing with fire protection and the Offices, Shops and Railway Premises Act 1963. But how did such legislation get on the statute book? It takes a tragedy, such as the James Watt whisky warehouse fire in Glasgow or the Bradford City football ground fire, involving the loss of lives including those of firemen, before Parliament acts in the interests of the public.
The Fire Brigades Union is seeking to bring to the notice of Parliament and the public some of the problems that will arise in the event of a fire within the tunnel. I do so in the absence of a public inquiry and the refusal of the House to consider the safety implications.

Mr. Snape: I apologise for interrupting my hon. Friend, but as a member of the Committee, may I say that it did not refuse to hear safety evidence? At the insistence of my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) and myself, the Committee heard evidence from the chief inspecting officer of railways. The Committee thought that he was competent to talk about railway safety.

Mr. Fields: I will discuss the matter with my hon. Friend afterwards.
The Fire Brigades Union has no vested interest in the Bill save the preservation of life. It has a proud record of service, devotion and sacrifice to the public. It will not make millions out of the project; it is not a speculator.
Safety considerations raise the question of cost, and perhaps with that in mind the Government are reticent about involving themselves in safety legislation. Government cuts have already affected fire service jobs and standards of cover. After the tragedy of the Brighton hotel, when Conservative Members were dragged out of the hotel, they paid lip service to the fire brigade. In the aftermath they launched upon a series of cuts that has affected jobs and service to the public. That is hypocrisy second to none. The legislation provides that much of the safety aspect will be left to the concessionaires. That is rather like leaving the City of London to self-regulation—and we have witnessed the results of that decision. The union does not represent a handful of people; it represents about 90 per cent. of all serving officers in the fire service. I have grave reservations about the safety of those members of the public who will travel through the tunnel and of those fire crews who will have to deal with an emergency. The Minister should consider the serious topics that are raised. Accidents will be inevitable, whether we like it or not, if the project gets off the ground.
Certain questions must be posed. Who will provide the fire fighters and the emergency services to combat fires in the tunnel? The Home Office provides for a predetermined attendance by such bodies at high-risk places such as airports and docks. Why is there no information about the procedures to be followed in the tunnel? If the Kent fire authority has a legal obligation under the Fire Services Acts of 1947 and 1959 and is to provide the fire fighters, are the Government willing to offer increased rate support grant to assist the authority? If the concessionaires are to provide fire cover, to what standards will officers be trained and who will train them? Are there any allocated premises on site for fire appliances and fire equipment—in fact, a fire station—to deal with an emergency? What detailed discussions have taken place, or are planned, to ensure that safe working practices in the tunnel meet our French counterparts' arrangements on equipment and safety procedures?
A simple experience in 1974, with the reorganisation of the fire service, led to a great deal of co-ordination because of the different appliances and equipment used by the brigades that came into the metropolitan areas. We need that type of co-ordination for the tunnel. The obvious differences in training and equipment between the British and the French fire services need to be considered. What happens if an incident occurs at the halfway mark or on either side of the dividing line? Who will deal with it? What procedures will be followed? If an emergency occurs, there will be chaos, and firemen and the general public will lose their lives.
There will be other dangers. The smoking rules will be flaunted in vehicles on the trains. Reference has been made to the danger caused by gas appliances in caravans. Legislation provides that people who travel on car ferries must leave their cars below deck and go up on deck, for safety reasons. Why cannot there be such a provision for this project? There is a distinct possibility of a large loss of life on a train in a fire. Narrow aisles will be blocked by persons trying to escape in a vehicle. Perhaps hon. Members have seen on television the panic that ensues among people in a fire, but it is something else to be there. The panic will be exacerbated by the claustrophobic atmosphere in the tunnel and by the darkness.
The Mersey tunnel was built 50 years ago and people are still afraid to go through it in case the walls will cave in and the Mersey will flood in and drown them. To expect train drivers and guards without training—the Bill makes no provision for training—to deal with emergencies is the height of Government irresponsibility. Chemicals transported through the tunnel could become involved in a catastrophe. Drivers on British roads have been conditioned by the Hazchem code, which was brought in by the Fire Brigades Union. Experts are needed.
The Government, through their lack of reference to safety standards or a lack of legal commitment, have shown scant regard for the public interest. The Bill's failure to state precisely who will cover the obligations of the 1947 and 1959 fire services legislation shows that insufficient thought has been given to fire fighting and rescue in the tunnel or its complex.
I could go on telling horror stories about prospects for the tunnel. The Fire Brigades Union and I ask the Government: what value do they put on human life? What provision will be made to ensure that firemen who will have to deal with incidents in the tunnel and the general public will be looked after properly and sensibly? We cannot leave this matter to market forces and to concessionaires. Expert attention is needed. The Government have a major responsibility to ensure that legislation covers the safety factors to which I have referred.

Mr. Moate: There is an immense responsibility on Government to ensure that safety standards are achieved. I have no doubt that the Government will accept that responsibility and that the highest possible standards will be written into the legislation. However, the fact remains that the Channel tunnel will he a remarkably potentially hazardous project. [Interruption] Hon. Members are a little glib. We must recognise the potential danger. We would be irresponsible if all possible steps were not taken to counter it.
Immense cost will be incurred in terms of policing, antiterrorist measures and fire precautions. Will my hon. Friend the Minister assure the House that the cost of those measures will be underwritten in some way by the operators of the tunnel and will not fall on the public purse?
I am sure that one can take anti-terrorist measures to ensure that bombs are not put into the tunnel. It will not only be a terrorist target but, more particularly, a target for bomb hoaxers. Will it not be relatively simple for any lunatic hoaxer, or whatever, almost daily to say that there is a bomb in the tunnel and thereby cause operations to be brought to a halt? What checks will be utilised to deal


with matters such as that? Will a thorough search be made every time a bomb threat or hoax call is made? There is a fundamental problem in that respect.

Mr. Raynsford: It is unfortunate that a debate on what is perhaps the most important of all the issues that we shall consider in relation to the Bill should be taken at around half past 12 o'clock. The issue deserves the most serious and thorough scrutiny and should have been considered at an earlier hour, if possible. This matter arouses a great deal of public concern. There is no question that the public, who look at decisions reached in the House, will seek evidence that we have taken seriously our obligation to ensure the safest possible standards applicable to transport through the Channel tunnel system. This matter is also in the interests of Eurotunnel. Quite simply, if the project is to succeed, the British public must be convinced that it will be safe. Far too many people say—many of them state this in letters to me—that in no circumstances would they take their vehicles and travel on the shuttle containers because they do not believe that the system is inherently safe.
If that view is widespread—I have every reason to believe that there is grave scepticism among the British public about the safety of the scheme at the moment—Eurotunnel's proposals will fail. Without public confidence, the chance of operating the scheme successfully, let alone of raising the finance at the stage of the third equity, rapidly will evaporate.
The reason safety is critical is that, inevitably, the tunnel configuration is vulnerable to many possibilities. It is vulnerable to a serious accident. It is vulnerable, as the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) pointed out, to terrorist attack or, indeed, to a simulated terrorist attack, or a hoax attack, which could lead to an interruption of service and to a potential problem. The reason why such an attack would be so serious is that the tunnel will be a very long structure through which a large number of people and vehicles will be passing at any one point in time. If anything goes wrong, an enormous number of lives will be in danger.
Quantities of potentially inflammable material being transported through the tunnel add to the risk. Experts also rightly point to the wind forces that will be generated by the transit through the tunnel at high speed of shuttle, freight and passenger trains, which could create a flash fire that would pass at great speed through the tunnel. In the event of an explosion, the safety air locks between the travelling and the safety tunnels could be breached, thereby leading to smoke and poisonous fumes reaching the service tunnel which is the principal means of escape, if passengers have to evacuate the shuttle trains.
12.45 am
Because such serious risks could potentially affect a very large number of people who would be in close proximity to a large quantity of inflammable material and who would be affected by poisonous fumes if a fire were to break out, it is absolutely essential that every possible precaution should be taken to guard against such risks. Those who looked into this question, in the Select Committee, the Standing Committee and elsewhere, heard from highly responsible experts who suggested that risks are involved because of the configuration of the tunnel. The Minister referred to the Alpine tunnels, but they are

several thousand feet above sea level and cannot be compared with a tunnel that will be under the sea. One of the safety experts dealt with this point. I refer to Dr. Eisner, the former director of the Health and Safety Executive's explosion and flame laboratory. [Interruption.] Dr. Eisner has a great deal more experience of these matters than most of the hon. Members who are braying on the Conservative Benches. He pointed to the specific issues that relate to an underwater tunnel and said:
Once started, a tunnel fire can spread very rapidly; most of the heat goes into raising the temperature of the air that passes through it, and downwind temperature of 1,000 degC are common. This is passed on to any flammable material in its path, and in this way a fire can 'jump' considerable tunnel lengths. Moreover, in the peculiar vertical configuration of the Tunnel, which runs about 100 metres below its entries, a fire would exert a powerful 'chimney' effect on the ventilation and could cause it to increase, reduce and even reverse."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 January 1987; c. 357.]
Other distinguished experts gave evidence, including Mr. Blackburn, the president of the Chief and Assistant Chief Fire Officers' Association. He pointed to the very real risks that would be run if a fire were to break out in the tunnel.
For all these reasons, it is essential that we should be satisfied that every possible step has been taken to ensure that the tunnel is as safe as possible. Eurotunnel never ceases to assure us that its system is inherently safe. That is part of its propaganda about the tunnel, in the belief that if it repeats the phrase often enough we shall all come to believe that its system is inherently safe. The problem about that is that it begs the question whether the system can be made safer.
There is one way in which a number of experts have suggested that it could be made safer. That is the key issue of the segregation of passengers from vehicles. I am not alleging or claiming that I know for sure that that would be safer. However, along with many other hon. Members I have heard quite substantial evidence from experts who have good grounds for putting forward their view that it may be safer and that there may be considerable safety advantages in achieving the segregation of passengers from vehicles.
Let us consider some of those possible advantages. First, by taking passengers out of their vehicles, the risk of a fire being created by human error, by people smoking and their cigarettes falling into bedding and other flammable material in the car, is minimised. It would also remove the risk of people fiddling with electrical equipment in or adjoining their car or, as an extreme example, being foolish enough to try to brew up a cup of tea on the calor gas equipment in their car, Dormobile or caravan.
Secondly, segregation would certainly ensure that in the event of a fire breaking out people would not be in close proximity to inflammable material and to petrol tanks where they would be at an obvious risk. If passengers are segregated from vehicles and placed in an environment that has been carefully designed to achieve the optimum safety, in other words, passenger wagons constructed of non-flammable materials and with the maximum fire resistance, without being close to petrol tanks or to materials such as bed clothes and camping materials which might cause poisonous fumes if they were to ignite, it is arguable that the potential for safety will be increased.
Thirdly, by segregating passengers from vehicles, if it is necessary to separate the two quickly and to evacuate the passengers from the tunnel, that is easier to do if the


passengers are not in the immediate vicinity of the vehicles where a fire may be taking place. Of course, another aspect of this is that if the two are together, there is less scope for deploying more effective measures to tackle the fire that has broken out. Clearly, one cannot use sprinkler or gas systems to put out a fire if there are people sitting in the cars who could be gassed or drowned by the use of those systems. If there are no people in the vicinity there is some potential advantage in terms of the automatic fire-fighting equipment that could be applied with great effect.
In all those cases, there appear to be grounds for believing that it would be safer to segregate passengers from vehicles. The experts who have given evidence have suggested that there may be considerable advantages in that. That gives rise to a critical question. [Interruption.] Conservative Members may scoff, but we are talking about the lives of thousands of our fellow citizens and that should not be treated lightly, even by hon. Members whose sole concern is to support the Government line, whatever the result of doing so may be.
The truth of the matter is that most sensible commentators considering this matter would ask: "Why is the possibility of segregating passengers from vehicles not being examined to see whether that would be safer?" Anybody coming to this country from Mars, or from abroad, without any prior knowledge of this would say, "Surely the sensible thing to do would be to evaluate the alternatives and see which would be the safest option". Early on, that seemed a sensible proposal to me. Indeed, I put it to Lord Pennock in a private meeting that I had with him before Christmas. Not surprisingly—I felt that he was acting reasonably—Lord Pennock said that he thought that that was a sensible proposal. He went on to make a broadcast on Radio Kent, in which he said:
under the concession, there is an independent Government Authority that has a responsibility for looking into safety, and deciding what measures we should take, and I am absolutely certain that that independent Government authority will consider … what are the pros and cons of the various methods of having passengers in cars or not, as the case may be, and that we will have a first-class authority of experts to go into that, and decide what they think is the best."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 January 1987; c. 375.]
Clearly, he thought that that was happening. Unfortunately, I have news for Lord Pennock and for Conservative Members. That is not happening because the present rules, under which the safety authority operates, will preclude the safety authority from looking at this question. Can that be sensible? Can it be sensible for the safety authority's terms of reference to be limited so that it cannot perform the sensible evaluation that Lord Pennock, the chairman of Eurotunnel, says that he expects it to do? Any reasonable person who comes to this issue with an open and unprejudiced mind would say that the right thing to do would be to see whether significant advantages can be achieved from the segregation of passengers from vehicles.
Why is that not happening? Why is the great Eurotunnel machine, despite the protestations of its chairman, who I suspect may not be its chairman for much longer, not prepared to take this commonsense path? The answer comes down to one simple and rather sordid consideration, and that is cash. Eurotunnel has the idea that it will cost it more to establish a system that involves segregating passengers and vehicles. It does not know how much more because tests have not been carried out. It is

not possible to carry out a proper evaluation to determine the extra cost and balance that against the potential gains and advantages to be derived from enhanced safety. That would be a rational and logical approach but we are not allowed to take it.
Undoubtedly, Eurotunnel's fear and anxiety is related to its shaky financial position. It had difficulty in raising the second tranche of equity and it has fears about whether it will be able to raise sufficient equity for the third. Against that background it is trying to push the segregation issue under the carpet in the hope that it will go away. I have news for Eurotunnel; the issue will not disappear. The British public will not allow themselves to have a scheme foisted on them without being satisfied that every possible action has been taken to ensure that it will be safe. They will not travel through the tunnel if they do not believe that that approach has been adopted.
It is a gross dereliction of duty for Ministers to allow the national interest and the interests of the British travelling public and their safety to be subordinated to the purely financial interests of Eurotunnel. It is a further illustration of the failure of Ministers, who are so desperate to get the Bill on the statute book, to consider the national interest and the safety of passengers. It is a dreadful indictment of Ministers that it can be said that they are so desperate to pursue this private enterprise venture that they are not prepared to countenance the possibility of imposing even a modest additional cost on it to achieve greater safety.

Mr. Rowe: The hon. Gentleman will remember that this debate was pursued at great length in Committee, and that I pressed my hon. Friend the Minister of State to say whether the safety authority would consider the possibility that the hon. Gentleman has raised. My hon. Friend gave me a reasonable assurance, as I understood it, that the authority would undoubtedly be considering segregation.

Mr. Raynsford: The hon. 'Gentleman's recollection of the debate in Committee is rather different from mine. It was in Committee that we sought, moderately and reasonably, to achieve two objectives. The first objective was to require Eurotunnel to submit alternative proposals to the safety authority that would involve an evaluation of the segregation of passengers from vehicles in the shuttle containers. Secondly, we asked that the authority should assess the safest system and that its decision should be based primarily on safety. That was the nature of the amendments that were tabled in Committee. The hon. Gentleman spoke initially with some sympathy for them but voted against them in Divisions, as he did when we debated and voted on a number of other issues. The amendment that related directly to segregation was defeated by only one vote. That defeat was a tragedy and accordingly we have tabled an amendment that is even more modest than its predecessor. It will be interesting to learn whether, once again, the Government find it impossible to accept the proposition.
The amendment would not require Eurotunnel to advance alternative proposals. It merely makes it clear that the safety authority will have the opportunity to issue such directions as may be necessary for the purpose of enabling it to consider whether the interests of safety would be enhanced by ensuring that on shuttle trains vehicles and their occupants travel separately. The amendment is


designed to ensure that the authority will be in a position to probe if it wishes to do so and to require extra information to enable it to carry out a proper appraisal.
I shall be interested to hear the Government's response. The amendment is designed to make it possible for a proper evaluation to be undertaken and I hope sincerely that we shall not hear the feeble and rather lame excuse that the Minister of State offered in Committee, when he said that the scheme would be acceptably safe and that there was no need for any alternative to be considered. It is in Eurotunnel's financial interests to say that the scheme is acceptably safe, but a similar claim was made by the constructors of the Titanic. Many people regretted the arrogance of those who believed that their projects were acceptably safe and who were not prepared to admit that there was a possibility of something going wrong. I hope that it will not take a comparable fiasco affecting the Channel tunnel to make people realise that the shortsighted approach of cheese-paring on policy to allow the financial interests of the Eurotunnel consortium to overrule concerns for people's safety is wrong.
1 am
The present position is unsatisfactory. Under current provisions, the safety authority will not be able to make a proper appraisal of the alternatives, including passenger vehicle segregation. The Opposition amendment will make it possible for the safety authority to determine that. This is a commonsense amendment which should be accepted by anyone who is concerned about the safety of passengers and the viability of the project.

Mr. Gale: This matter was discussed at great length in Standing Committee. Anyone who came close to the grim horrors of the Moorgate tube disaster will understand why there is so much concern. This matter will, I suspect, be discussed again at equal length in another place and I want to make only a brief point tonight.
One of the objections to the project from north-east Kent has been over the effect that the whole project might have on the economy. The reason for that, as my hon. Friend the Minister is aware, is that the economy is so dependent upon the Channel ports.
We firmly believe that the Channel ports can compete on equal terms with the Channel tunnel—but I stress "on equal terms". The cross-Channel ferries are covered by very stringent safety regulations, as my hon. Friend the Minister is aware. He said that my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) was trying to do a hatchet job on the finance. The advertisement in yesterday's newspapers suggested that we would be better off under the weather. I suggest that that advertisement was seeking to do a hatchet job on the Channel ferries. My hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South does not need me to remind him that the new Sally cross-Channel ferry is as safe and calm in January and February as it is at any other time of the year. Particular care has been taken with stabilisation and with lashing down vehicles on board. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Minister does not need me to tell him that passengers are separated from their cars.
I have only one question to ask my hon. Friend the Minister. Can he give us an assurance that, in order to allow the Channel tunnel to have a competitive advantage over the cross-Channel ferries, there will be no suggestion that the Channel tunnel operators will be allowed to cut

corners on safety and that tunnel trains will be subject to the same very high and stringent safety standards as the cross-Channel ferries so that they compete on equal terms and the travelling public are as safe?

Mr. Snape: I want to say a few words about the contribution from the hon. Member for Thanet, North (Mr. Gale). It is difficult to compare safety operations in different modes of transport. It is nonsense to say that because people are necessarily segregated on a cross-Channel ferry for obvious reasons—for example, it might be necessary for people to take to lifeboats or to muster at a specific place on the deck of a ferry—it must necessarily be correct for them to be segregated on every other form of transport.
I hope that my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) will acknowledge that while I readily concede that he has valuable expertise in firefighting, I have some experience in railway safety. With no Eurotunnel axe to grind, I must say that there is nothing inherently unsafe about travelling by train through a tunnel. If there were, Britain's main lines would be much less used than they are. When my hon. Friend the Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen goes to Liverpool by train—as I hope he does fairly frequently—if he stays on the fast lines, the usual route through Roade junction means that he passes through Kilsby tunnel just south of Rugby, which is more than two miles long. Indeed, my hon. Friend the Member for Coventry, South-East (Mr. Nellist) also passes through that tunnel on occasion. However, that tunnel is considerably shorter than the distance involved in crossing under the Channel. I suggest to my hon. Friends the Members for Broadgreen and for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) that the principle is pretty much the same. A tunnel is a tunnel.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: What is the speed restriction?

Mr. Snape: The speed restriction through Kilsby tunnel, if it is the same as it was when I was a railway guard used to sign for the stretch of the line, is 100 miles per hour. I understand that that is the same speed restriction as that envisaged for trains passing through the Channel tunnel. Therefore, I do not see what relevance the speed restriction has.
Nobody is going to convince the hon. Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) about the safety or otherwise of the scheme. He is a convinced anti-tunneller and he regards it as perfectly legitimate—I make no complaint about it—to cast aspersions on the project, whether they are based on safety or other factors. He suggests that it is easy to blow up vehicles on a cross-Channel train. It is easy to blow the bottom off a cross-Channel ferry. Presumably all one would have to do is pack the car boot full of explosive and leave it on the ferry.
My right hon. Friend the Member for Lewisham, Deptford (Mr. Silkin) is another convinced anti-tunneller. Nothing I say about railway safety will make any difference to him, because he is completely against the Channel tunnel project. I suggest to him, as I suggest to the hon. Member for Southend, East, that if a fanatic was determined to cause as much loss of life as possible, he would do a worse job or better job, as he might see it, by parking a car beneath the deck of a cross-Channel ferry and walking away. If he stayed on the ferry he might go down himself, but presumably that would not bother fanatics too much.


When people have tried to blow up trains, as they have in recent years on the French and Italian railway systems, the loss of life has been comparatively small. I agree that the explosions on the trains have not taken place within the confined space of a tunnel. An explosion in a tunnel might be much more serious. However, in two Committees, as well as during this debate, I have heard many scare stories about what might happen. I must say, redonning my National Union of Railwaymen hat, if I had realised that travelling through tunnels on trains was so dangerous, I would have demanded a pay rise years ago. I do not know why I did it so cheaply if it is so inherently dangerous.
My hon. Friend the Member for Broadgreen rightly reminds us that the Fire Brigades Union has warned about the danger of fires in tunnel. However, I read the last issue of "Firefighter" and I hope that he will concede that many of those views were expressed at a conference where a political decision was taken that the Fire Brigades Union was against the construction of a Channel tunnel. I make no complaint about that. Unlike some Conservative Members, I do not complain about trade unions taking political decisions. However, it was pointed out at the conference that going ahead with the project might lead to job losses among Britain's seamen. It was in the context of that resolution that the question of fire safety was discussed.
We said in Committee—we had a similar debate in Committee, and we seem to have been having similar debates ad infinitum—that the evidence about the likely carnage in any tunnel is lacking. Regrettably it is not unheard of over the years for people to die in train fires. Until about the time of the first world war, when most passenger trains were lit by gas lamps, in the event of a collision the gas pipe in the coaches often fractured and the coaches, in those days predominantly wooden bodied, caught fire and occasionally considerable loss of life occurred. However, that took place 70 or 80 years ago. Modern railway rolling stock—no one has yet suggested that the stock used on cross-Channel services will not be the most modern rolling stock—is known to be fairly fire-resistant and extremely strong.
We heard in Standing Committee that a few months ago at Colwich junction, on the west coast main line of British Rail, a virtual head-on collision took place between two passenger trains. The only loss of life in that collision, tragically and regrettably, was a member of the crew. Not one passenger was killed, despite the fact that those trains were travelling at over 100 miles per hour. The inherent strength of modern-day rolling stock is apparent. On no other mode of transport could such an accident occur with such low loss of life. The evidence is somewhat lacking. As recently as 1975 five people died in the Taunton sleeping car fire when someone left blankets next to a heater causing smoke, flames and fumes.
That accident led directly to the complete redesign and replacement of British Rail's sleeping car fleet. We are not inexperienced in correcting the faults that might lead to deaths. Railway history over the past 150 years has shown that a recommendation has been made by the railway inspectorate after every tragedy, which hopefully has helped to prevent similar tragedies.

Mr. Raynsford: My hon. Friend rightly focused on the considerable improvement in railway rolling stock over the years, which now is of greater strength and fire resistance

than ever before. Will he agree that, while this is the case for railway rolling stock, it is not quite the same where that rolling stock is full of vehicles with petrol tanks and other flammable materials, and that that makes a case for evaluating the possibility of segregating passengers and vehicles as a means of enhancing safety?

Mr. Snape: Indeed; that is why my name and the name of my hon. Friend appear on amendment No. 8.
First, let me look at the whole question of the inflammability or otherwise of the average private car which would be taken on a cross-Channel train. If it is true that the average private car is an extremely inflammable object, why are there not more warnings? I gave up smoking about three years ago. I used to be a regular smoker while I was driving my car. I cannot think of an incident where a former regular smoker like me managed to set fire to his car while the car was in motion, yet the car was switched on, the electrical system was working, and petrol was being pumped around the engine.
I do not know of any case where that happened, yet we are told in this debate that there is some terrible danger in allowing passengers to sit in a car in which the engine is switched off, the electrical system is dead, and smoking is not allowed. There will be attendants, if not on every single coach, passing through the train the whole time to enforce the no-smoking regulations. In addition, there will be a fire-proof curtain at the end of each coach. I would have had great difficulty convincing railway management in my NUR days that they ought to pay danger money to train crews in those circumstances. I may lack the negotiating abilities of some of my hon. Friends but it does not seem to he a tenable proposition.
I appreciate the genuine fears that have been expressed, but most of them are exaggerated. Segregating passengers from their cars would have the effect of slowing down considerably the rate of boarding and leaving the trains. I do not suggest it is our job on this side of the House to worry about the profits of Eurotunnel. I would much rather see this project funded by public money and run as part of British Rail and SNCF, without the terminals and the shuttles, but we do not have that option before us. We should not overlook the fact that the segregation of passengers and vehicles, as demanded by some of the most vociferous opponents to the scheme on the ground of safety, would cripple the project financially. I do not suggest that that motivates anybody in this debate. I am not by nature a particularly suspicious person, but as a member of the Select Committee I saw and heard a prominent member of the management of Sealink giving evidence about the effect of segregation on those trains and alarm bells rang. That was because I thought that perhaps, just perhaps, this prominent member of Sealink's management was not quite the impartial witness I would have liked to hear giving evidence about passengers sitting in their cars and being conveyed by train.
1.15 am
There are just two bodies best qualified to discuss safety. One is the body which has been entrusted for over 150 years with the investigation of every railway accident that takes place in Britain. That is the railways inspectorate. It is now almost 30 years since I had the opportunity to see the inspectorate in action after a minor accident at Slade lane junction just outside Manchester when a driver misread a signal and one train ran into the back of another. No one saw the inspectorate in action at


that time—management, railwaymen, signalmen, drivers or anybody else—could have failed to be impressed by the thoroughness with which the investigation was carried out and by the promptness with which the inspectorate's recommendations to prevent a further accident were published and accepted as the right way forward by both management and unions.
The chief inspecting officer of railways was cross-examined by my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) and by others when he gave evidence to the Select Committee. He commented on segregation and said that the last time the project was under discussion, in the mid-1970s, the railways inspectorate was, provided other assurances could be received, quite relaxed about the prospect of rail passengers travelling with their cars.
The other and perhaps equally important body which will be responsible for safety is the intergovernmental commission and safety authority. It will contain the chief inspecting officer of railways about whom I have already spoken, and the chief fire officer of Kent and his French counterpart. The chief inspecting officer of railways gave the Select Committee his assurance that if any of the inspectorate's recommendations about safety were rejected by the Government, the safety commission or anybody else, the members of the inspectorate would resign en bloc. That is a fairly strong view for the chief inspecting officer of railways to express, and surely the most cynical among us would feel that an assurance like that given with the sincerity with which it was given is worth accepting.
I appreciate many of the fears expressed by hon. Members. My own experience in rail matters is somewhat dated because, as some hon. Members might say, I have been here too long. However, no one has come up with a single shred of evidence about dangers to passengers travelling with their vehicles. There is, of course, the good Dr. Eisner about whom my hon. Friend the Member for Fulham spoke. We found in Standing Committee that Dr. Eisner was not quite the impartial person that some of us wanted. He had applied for a job with Eurotunnel as an adviser on safety matters and was not accepted. I do not doubt his expertise.

Mr. Gale: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that even those of us who have opposed this project would prefer, if it goes ahead, to see it succeed. If it is to succeed it must do so with safety. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State at the Department of Transport is in his place. A fortnight ago he visited the scene of a multiple accident on the M2, where three lorries and four cars collided and burned out, leaving one man incinerated. I hope that the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape) will accept that petrol surrounded by people is extremely dangerous, and that on impact petrol ignites. There is a genuine fear that if that were to happen in the tunnel the carnage might be appalling.

Mr. Snape: I accept that there is a genuine fear, and I accept that if it were to happen in the tunnel the carnage would be appalling. I have to repeat to the hon. Gentleman that motorways are dangerous where individual drivers are supposedly responsible for individual vehicles. The cross-Channel link will have the best railway safety devices that are known in any country. The possibility of one train colliding with another—bearing in mind that we have

two separate rail tunnels and a separate service tunnel—is so small as to be almost discountable. There are no recorded instances that I am aware of in recent years, given a proper modern signalling system, of such collisions occurring. While I readily concede the dangers that the hon. Gentleman rightly draws to our attention, I have to say that the chances of them happening are minimal. Nevertheless, we on the Opposition Benches feel that nothing should prevent the evaluation of the two modes—that is, passengers travelling with their vehicles and passengers being separated from their vehicles. We want to give the intergovernmental commission and safety authority the right, if that commission so decides, to look at the alternative recommended under amendment No. 7. We want the commission to make that decision. We feel that its members and not Members of the House, are the right people to make that decision.

Mr. David Mitchell: Early in the debate my hon. Friend the Member for Southend, East (Mr. Taylor) raised the question of the terrorist threat. We are seven years from the opening of the tunnel. One would make an assessment of the threat at that time. It is impossible currently to foretell what the threat may be. It might be less serious than it is now or it might be more serious.
Subsection (3)(a) of clause 16 confers a wide range of powers on persons authorised by the intergovernmental commission and safety authority to carry out
any inspection, examination or investigation with respect to any matter concerning the construction or operation
of the tunnel system. My hon. Friend will agree that that is sufficient power to deal with that point.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does that give them the power to require the operation of procedures for the inspection of vehicles in the tunnel?

Mr. Mitchell: If I say it more slowly, my hon. Friend may have the opportunity of ascertaining that it covers the point that he wants:
any inspection, examination or investigation".
I think that that is pretty conclusive.
The hon. Member for Liverpool, Broadgreen (Mr. Fields) asked who will be responsible. The safety authority will be responsible. On that safety authority will serve the chief fire officer of the Kent county fire brigade.
The hon. Gentleman asked what will happen about people who ignore rules on smoking in cars. There will be attendants to check. That would be a breach of the byelaws, and there will be heavy penalties.
The hon. Gentleman asked about people in caravans who light primuses to brew tea. The hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) also raised this point. People will not be allowed to travel in caravans. They will have to travel in their car.

Mr. Raynsford: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Mitchell: It is very late. This has all been said a dozen times in Committee.
The question of claustrophobia was raised, as it was raised when the London Underground was built. People travel in the Underground without suffering from claustrophobia, but if they suffer from claustrophobia they can travel by ferry if they wish.
I reject the suggestion that fire prevention will not be given proper attention. The Fire Brigades Union is continually asking questions, but it does not seem to listen to the answers which have been repeatedly given.
My hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) asked about fire fighting. There are two stages in fire fighting. The first is that Eurotunnel will have fire-fighting equipment and staff trained in its use on the trains. If there should be a more serious incident which requires the attendance of the county fire brigade, it will be called for in the normal way. Since the contribution from the rates made on the tunnel operation will contribute to the Kent county council's finances, that will be the usual way in which the Kent county council's fire brigade's costs will be recovered.

Mr. Dave Nellist: The Minister is no doubt aware that the Home Office sets standards for emergency vehicles covering both ambulances and fire engines. For example, under the 1974 analysis the ambulance service is required to respond to 50 per cent. of all incidents within seven minutes and 90 per cent. of all incidents within 14 minutes. In the fire service there are gradings of five, eight or 10 minutes, depending on the degree of risk. Will the Minister give an assurance that, particularly in the light of his latter remarks about whether further vehicles and assistance would be called to a serious incident, those minimum standards set down for the Home Office operation on the mainland will apply during the construction and operation of the tunnel and will not be breached?

Mr. Mitchell: The hon. Gentleman will well know that those standards do not apply to a train moving through the countryside. He is stretching his illustration too far. I shall write to him on the details of his point.

Mr. Moate: I understood my hon. Friend to say that basically the county council will have to have standby fire-fighting facilities and additional police and security arrangements. I think that he said that the cost of those would have to be met from the ratepayers' funds. Does not that contradict the general undertaking that the project will not be a burden on public funds?

Mr. Mitchell: My hon. Friend is forgetting the substantial rate income which will come from the operation. Indeed, the addition to the revenue of Kent and the district council which will come from the rateable value of the project is something that my hon. Friend will find comforting when he looks at the figures involved.
The hon. Member for Fulham raised yet again the risk of fire in a tunnel, although the Swiss experience shows that that is not a genuine risk. He raised the question of wind forcing a fire to extend beyond the vehicle in which it started, but there will be fire doors or fire curtains between one vehicle and another, so that that problem does not arise. He then raised the possibility of the service tunnel doors being blown in. Since the service tunnel will be pressurised, the air will go into the main tunnels, not the smoke from the main tunnels into the service tunnel.
Let me deal with the important point of segregation. I think that I shall carry even the hon. Gentleman with me if I say that the safest way to ensure that any fire which breaks out in any vehicle being carried on a tunnel train is spotted will be if attendants watch each vehicle. A driver sitting in the vehicle will be the best possible attendant watching that vehicle. He will respond immediately if anything happens that is likely to damage it. The idea that because segregation is carried out in vessels at sea it can be transported to the Channel tunnel arena is simply to use

a wooden horse to advance an argument which will damage the economics of the Channel tunnel on the pretext that it is a safety improvement. It is nothing of the sort.

Mr. Raynsford: Does the Minister accept that, rather than continuing to push ideas or views from one side of the Chamber to the other, it may be right to allow what is suggested in the amendment—that is to leave the safety authority with the freedom to choose to look at the alternative if it thinks it has advantages and let it reach a decision on that?

Mr. Mitchell: There seems to be a misunderstanding about the extent of the powers of the intergovernmental commission and the safety authority. There is nothing in any of the international arrangements or in this Bill which prevents them from considering any matter relevant to safety in the tunnel. Therefore, if they need to look at the implications of segregating occupants from their vehicles they already have all the necessary powers to do so. On that ground, I ask the House to reject the amendments.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: In the hope that we have created the good will necessary to persuade the Minister to consider the arguments advanced tonight and to reflect on them, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 18

OPERATION BY THE CONCESSIONAIRES

Mr. David Mitchell: I beg to move amendment No. 9, in page 16, leave out lines 2 to 6 and insert—
'(3) The Concessionaires shall make provision for the conveyance by means of shuttle trains of pedal bicycles and of motorcycles of which the cylinder capacity of the engine is less than 50 cubic centimetres.'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we may discuss amendment No. 14, in clause 23, page 19, line 12. at end insert—
'(2) Any such approval under this section shall only be given where the rolling stock can adequately convey the appropriate classes of traffic, including in the case of shuttle trains and through international passenger trains, pedal cycles.'.

Mr. Mitchell: The effect of the Government's amendments is to replace the amendment moved successfully during the Committee stage by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) with a provision which fully meets his objective while eliminating serious drafting defects. The hon. Gentleman was concerned to ensure that the concessionaires are required to carry pedal cycles although they are not among the categories of vehicle that the concession agreement requires the shuttle trains to accept.
The hon. Member for Fulham said:
The amendment is prompted primarily by members of the cycling fraternity".
He went on to say:
The amendment merely adds pedal cycles. That is the only change."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 13 January 1987; c. 422.]
Although the hon. Gentleman meant to provide only for pedal cycles, his amendment would have had other consequences which are not acceptable.

Sir George Young: I very much welcome Government amendment No. 9. My hon. Friend has gracefully accepted his defeat in Standing Committee at the hands of the cyclists and has introduced a Government amendment drafting out the impurities which existed in the original amendment moved by the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford). I have one question to ask the Minister about his amendment. Why he has chosen the wording:
shall make provision for the conveyance
rather than simply using the word "convey"? Is it because there are subtle distinctions between "making provision for the conveyance" and "conveyance" and, if so, what are they? Will the Minister confirm that there will be a legal obligation on Eurotunnel to provide a service for those who present themselves with their bicycles?
I shall briefly speak to amendment No. 14 and say that the appetite of the cyclists has now been whetted by the provision being made on the Eurotunnel shuttle service. But, of course, that is just one part of the problem. The position at the moment is that the cyclist will have to cycle to Cheriton to get his bicycle on the train. For those of us in middle age who live in Acton that is a very long way to go indeed. What the cyclist wants is the ability to put his bicycle, not just on the Eurotunnel shuttle, but on the ordinary British Rail trains that will run from Waterloo and other terminals. That is the impact of amendment No. 14. If I may say so to my hon. Friend, what happened in Standing Committee has undermined somewhat any argument that he might put forward to resist this amendment, because those of us who served on the Standing Committee will remember that he resisted the modest amendment to make provision for bicycles in the Eurotunnel with a whole string of arguments, for example, that cyclists would fall from some high platforms, that they would fall under the wheels of motor cars, and all the rest. The Minister lost the Division and then, blow me down, within a few days the Government had tabled an amendment of their own which had exactly the same impact as the amendment he had resisted.
My amendment is much more straightforward. We want the cyclists to be able to take a pedal cycle on to a train at any British Rail station, so that the whole problem about high platforms and intermingling with cars driving at speed into the Eurotunnel simply do not arise. British Rail's record of negotiation with cyclists is not a good one. We do not believe that it has any intention of making any provision for the bicycle, and the 15 million cyclists in Britain simply will not be able to get to the continent with their bicycle unless they cycle all the way to Cheriton.

Mr. Wolfson: Does my hon. Friend agree with me that, as well as there being 15 million cyclists in Britain, there are probably even more in France, where cycling is a most acceptable form of recreation? If British Rail wants a two-way traffic to the maximum extent it should be much readier to accept cyclists than it is at present.

Sir George Young: I agree with my hon. Friend, whose moving speech in Committee about cycling for softies is one that we shall all remember. There is a real market available—amounting to some £10 million—to British Rail if only it would abandon its hostile attitude to the cycle and instead embrace it.
Is it really the case that the rolling stock being designed by British Rail makes no provision for the bicycle, and that there is a real prospect of the project going ahead without

one being able to put a bicycle on a train? If that is so, it is indefensible. I hope that the Minister will reassure us that the very modest demands of the cycling community will be met.

Mr. Anthony Steen: When my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) approached me to share this amendment with him, had I known that it would be discussed at 1.35 am the following morning, I would not in any way have changed my mind about supporting it.
The amendment is extremely modest—indeed, so modest that I am almost embarrassed about putting it forward. All that we are asking British Rail to do is something that, for the past 10 years, it has said it wished to do—namely, to help the cyclist. The first thing that it did after saying that it wished to help the cyclist was to build rolling stock that excluded any possibility of a cycle being carried. After a great deal of campaigning by my hon. Friend and others, British Rail was persuaded to allow bicycles on its trains. It is well known in the House that, as a result of the pressure put on British Rail by myself and other hon. Members in the all-party friends of cycling group, it increased its revenue by more than £1 million a year.
All that we are suggesting tonight is that the Minister helps British Rail to create more profit, more revenue and more business. We are not suggesting that trainloads of bicycles should go under the Channel. We are suggesting only that instead of expecting octogenarians to cycle from Charing Cross to Cheriton, and arrive in a very poor condition before crossing to France, we should facilitate the increasing number of people who enjoy cycling for leisure. They should be encouraged to get on a British Rail train, which should provide a small space for a small bicycle in the guard's van or in the coach.
I should be happy if the Minister said that he would like to encourage British Rail to put in collapsible bicycles and reduce the space by saying that bicycles should be small, not large, wheeled. We would he quite agreeable to the Minister taking away the amendment and coming back with a slightly improved one. The Minister likes to take away amendments and then reintroduce them in virtually identical terms, but in his way. We would be happy for him to do that with this amendment.
It would be scandalous if the French built their trains with space for the bicycle, so that they can come here and be stranded at Cheriton, while the English have to cycle to Cheriton before they can cross the Channel. There will be an imbalance of bicycles between Britain and France.
Having spent many hours with the Minister on the Select Committee considering the question of buses, I know that he is reasonable and will want to do his very best for cyclists. However, he will probably say that it is not for the Government to interfere with British Rail's running practices. But the Minister is always interfering with British Rail's running practices." If he is not, he should be. With a little simple drafting, the Minister could please the whole House, many of whose Members are latent cyclists and many of whom do not confess to cycling because they think it slightly eccentric and strange to want to get on a bicycle. In Britain it is regarded as somewhat strange that people should want to jump on bicycles, but, as we know, when the House adjourns tonight many hon. Members will jump on bicycles and make their way home.
I hope that in a spirit of good will the Minister will make a gesture that would please hon. Members in all parts of the House. Let a little space be made available on BR trains so that octogenarians and others—people will be retiring much earlier—can get on their bikes and go to France.
The French always manage to gain an advantage from situations. At present BR rolling stock is carrying exclusively French mineral water. If we could have—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Paul Dean): Order. I cannot see the relevance of mineral water to this series of amendments.

Mr. Steen: I had intended to suggest that it would be on the bicycles, but in view of your ruling, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I will not pursue the point. I think I have said enough to convince the Minister of the rightness of our case.

Mr. David Mitchell: I am asked to explain the significance of the words "making provision for". The only point I need make is that the phrase includes the opportunity for a van service to be provided for cycles. Reference was made to international trains being compelled to carry cycles. The international trains represent a fully commercial joint French-English operation. Unlike the trains on the rest of the BR network—where the PSO is a relevant factor; there is no PSO operating here—there is a clear commitment by Government that no Government finance will be going into the venture, and it is therefore placed in a different category.
I appreciate the anxiety that my hon. Friends have voiced about octogenarians cycling from Charing Cross to Cheriton, and I am as anxious as they are to ensure that that does not happen. The position is simple. Cyclists can get to France either by catching a train and using one of the ferries or by catching a train to Folkestone and cycling about half a mile to the Cheriton depot where they will use the facilities that will be provided by Eurotunnel for the conveyance of cycles through the tunnel.
I hope that, on the basis of that reasonable arrangement, my hon. Friends will allow the matter to rest.

Sir George Young: I listened with interest to the Minister's reply. Cyclists seek no subsidy. We are happy to pay should there be a problem over whether the service pays for itself. The ferries carry bicycles free of charge and I do not see why BR should make such heavy weather over a modest request for a van for bicycles.
Unless my hon. Friend is prepared to use his influence with BR to take another look at this whole issue, I shall have to ask hon. Members, many of whom sympathise with the case we have made, to divide the House.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: I should make it clear that the debate is taking place on Government amendment No. 9. If the hon. Gentleman is asking for a separate division on amendment No. 14, I am prepared to grant that, and we will deal with it at the appropriate place on the Order Paper.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 20

CONFIRMATION, VARIATION AND REVOCATION OF BYELAWS BY SECRETARY OF STATE

Amendments made: No. 11, in page 17, line 32, leave out
'in such manner as may be approved by the Secretary of State.

No. 12, in page 17, line 35, at end insert—
'(a) in such newspapers circulating in the City of Canterbury, the borough of Ashford and the districts of Dover, Shepway and Thanet, in the county of Kent; and
(b) in such other manner;
as may be approved by the Secretary of State.'

No. 13, in page 18, line 3, at end insert—
'(5A) The Secretary of State shall not confirm any byelaw submitted to him for confirmation unless he has consulted the Kent County Council and the council of any district in which it appears to him that the byelaw would have effect.'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Does the hon. Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) wish to move amendment No. 14 formally?

Sir George Young: When I spoke a few moments ago, I was trying to give the Minister the opportunity, if he so wished, to say whether he was prepared to pursue the matter. I resumed my seat because I hoped that the Minister would rise again and say whether he could meet, in some way, the request that I made for a further initiative from British Rail.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: We are really past that point now, but, if the Minister is very anxious, I am prepared, exceptionally, to jog back as t were.

Mr. David Mitchell: It was my intention to rise when my hon. Friend sat down but simply to say that I cannot give him a positive assurance that British Rail will install such arrangements in its trains and Anglo-French trains, because I do not know the costs involved, or the commercial consequences. I am prepared to help my hon. Friend and to undertake to raise the matter with British Rail.

Clause 46

INTERPRETATION

Amendment made: No 17, in page 32, line 8, at end insert—
' "nature conservation" means the conservation of flora, fauna or geological or physiographical features;'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 1

THE SCHEDULED WORKS

Amendment made: No 18, in page 39, leave out lines 9 to 11—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 2

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO THE SCHEDULED WORKS AND OTHER AUTHORISED WORKS

Amendment made: No 20, in page 46, line 32, at end insert

'Works Nos. 25A and 25B: Nature Consultations
10A. The Railways Board shall not begin to construct Work No. 25A or Work No. 25B until they have consulted—


(a) the councils of the London borough of Ealing, the London borough of Hammersmith and Fulham and the Royal borough of Kensington and Chelsea; and
(b) the London Wildlife Trust;
as to the likely effect of the construction of the works on nature conservation.'—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 3

PLANNING PERMISSION

Amendment made: No 21, in page 64, leave out lines 22 and 23.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 5

SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISIONS AS TO ACQUISITION OF LAND

Amendments made: No. 24, in page 77, line 50 leave out `21 days after' and insert
'the period of two months beginning with'.

No. 25, in page 78, line 6 leave out '21 days after' and insert
'the period of two months beginning with'.—[Mr. David Mitchell.]

Schedule 7

PROTECTIVE PROVISIONS

Mr. Peter Rees: I beg to move amendment No. 31, in page 92, line 40, after 'operations,' insert
'which for the purposes of this schedule shall include the disposal of any spoil from any such works or operations'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 30, in page 93, line 2, at end insert—
'(3A) The construction of the specified works shall when they are respectively commissioned be carried out with all reasonable dispatch in accordance with the plans, specifications and programmes approved by and to the reasonable satisfaction of the Harbour Board.'.
No. 29, in page 93, line 17, at end insert—
'6. Nothing in this Schedule shall deprive the Harbour Board of any remedy available to the Harbour Board for damage or loss whatever sustained whether at common law or otherwise.'.

Mr. Rees: I hope not to detain the House for long on these three last amendments to this important Bill. I am covering ground that was well tilled, once again, by my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken) on the last day of the Committee.
The House will be aware that it was thought proper by the draftsmen of the Bill—I commend that decision—to include part IV of schedule 7 for the protection of the Dover harbour board. I hasten to add that Dover harbour board is not the only body that has a special provision in the Bill designed for its protection.
Because of the lateness of the hour, I do not wish to stress the importance of the Dover harbour board, first to the economy of the country and secondly, to my constituency. The Government thought that, during the initial operation of the tunnel—if indeed it achieves the approval of both Houses of Parliament—the Dover harbour board should have special protection.
On closer inspection, the Committee decided that those measures should be strengthened in the harbour boards

favour. My hon. Friend the Minister had much to say about that during the Committee sitting on Thursday 22 January and his splendid lapidary words can be found in columns 760–761 of Hansard. I am sure that I do not need to read them out because the Minister will have those words in his mind, as will every hon. Member who has read Hansard.
The Committee decided to hold its hand, on the understanding that further matters should be brought forward. Eurotunnel—in a moment of candour—and the Government agreed that the Bill should be strengthened in the harbour board's favour. It was, however, decided that the matter should be left to Eurotunnel and the harbour board to consider if those matters could be thrashed out, if not agreed.
I commend the Minister's sanguine outlook after 22 days of what, judging by some of the contributions tonight, especially those of the hon. Member for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford), must have been rather taxing debate. In one of his moments of optimism, he said that he understood that
negotiations between Eurotunnel and the harbour board are still in progress, but a good measure of agreement appears to have been reached so far."—[Official Report, Standing Committee A, 22 January 1987; c. 761].
My information is not as roseate as his. The matter was raised before the Select Committee and we are therefore entitled to expect something concrete to have been hammered out. I assume that, if the Bill receives the approval of the House tonight, it will move with some rapidity to another place. This may not leave all that long a time for a measure of agreement to be achieved between Eurotunnel and the harbour board.
I do not expect my hon. Friend the Minister totally to accept the three amendments. I would not, therefore, be disposed to press them to a conclusion tonight, provided my hon. Friend assures me that, if no proper agreement is embodied which the Select Committee in another place could consider reasonably, the Minister responsible for the Bill in the other place will be prepared to table at an appropriate stage a suitably strengthened series of provisions to protect the interests of the Dover harbour board. I hope that on that basis we shall be able to conclude our consideration of the Bill.

Mr. David Mitchell: Negotiations between Eurotunnel and the harbour board are still in progress. I understand that the parties have moved considerably closer together. There is no reason to believe that the negotiations will not reach a successful conclusion before the Select Committee in another place completes its proceedings. It is entirely normal for protective provisions in private Bills to be settled quite late in the Bill's passage during proceedings in the second House.
I have listened carefully to the points raised by my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) in support of the harbour board's position and, no doubt, Eurotunnel will have noted them also. However, I am sure that my right hon. and learned Friend will accept that it would be wrong for the House to anticipate the outcome of the negotiations between the parties by approving piecemeal amendments at this stage. I trust that my right hon. and learned Friend will therefore agree to withdraw his amendment.

Mr. Rees: I made the position clear. I know that my hon. Friend must be tired. There was a long, taxing and


probably irritating Committee stage, but he is giving precisely the same answer that he gave to my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I feel that, in the interests of progress, my hon. Friend might make a slight concession. I have not pressed my hon. Friend on Report. He knows my position on the Bill. I feel that he can do just a fraction more. If no satisfactory agreement is available to be considered by the Select Committee in the other place and my hon. Friend says that he will consult the Minister in charge of the Bill in the other place to ascertain what can be done, I am sure that common ground will be found between us.

Mr. Mitchell: I think that I can assist my right hon. and learned Friend to find the common ground that he seeks and give the assurance that he requests.

Mr. Peter Rees: I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Order for Third Reading read.

Motion made, and Question proposed, That the Bill be now read the Third time.—["Mr. Garel-Jones.]

Mr. Robert Hughes: I pay tribute to those hon. Members who were on the Select Committee and on the Standing Committee. The duties have been especially onerous on my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who carried a heavy burden in leading for the Opposition with, I am sure hon. Members agree, his normal charm, humour and tact, and on my hon. Friends the Members for Fulham (Mr. Raynsford) and for Worsley (Mr. Lewis), who served on the two Committees and who, since last June, have spent almost every waking moment dealing with the Channel tunnel.
I have been, and remain, critical of the Government's approach in using the hybrid Bill procedure—for example, the inclusion of the A20 proposals is purely a sharp practice, because they have nothing to do with the Channel tunnel. We should not slip into putting measures into hybrid Bills simply for the Government's convenience to save them embarrassment.
Therefore, I make it clear that if the treaty is not ratified before a general election intervenes, an incoming Labour Government will hold a public inquiry into the tunnel. Secondly, I make it clear beyond doubt—to this extent I agree with the Government—that should Eurotunnel go bankrupt either during the construction of the tunnel, although bankruptcy is unlikely at that stage, or when it is in operation, an incoming Labour Government will not bail out the investors. The project stands or falls as a private capital venture.
It would be foolish to pretend that the Channel tunnel project does not raise great passions for and against. I do not doubt the sincerity of those who regard this as a matter of great principle. From the outset, my approach has been primarily to examine the transport implications. I frankly concede that the tunnel is not a matter of great principle for me. I strongly believe that potential benefits may become available to British Rail and to those who work for it. As my hon. Friend the Member for West Bromwich, East pointed out, only 2 per cent. of British Rail's freight is international, whereas 27 per cent. of SNCF's freight is international. That is a simple matter of geography. But

the tunnel provides an opportunity for British Rail to claim a larger share of international freight traffic in a competitive market. I wish that I could be sure that BR is looking far enough ahead.
It is inexplicable that BR should close down eight primarily east-coast freight liner depots when it should aggressively tout for business. It seems to be wholly inconsistent with the need to increase freight traffic.
Although I welcome the Government's acceptance of the principle of new clause 3 regarding dispersal, I regret that they did not accept the amendment about safety and the separation of people and vehicles. Apart from the safety angle, Eurotunnel has got the market strategy wrong. A system more akin to Motorail would be more attractive. Vehicles could be driven on to separate cars to be taken across the Channel and people could travel in what may be called a club car or in an open-plan vehicle, in which they may journey, if not in luxurious conditions at least in comfort. Eurotunnel tells me that that would not be commercially viable. Commercial viability must not compromise safety. I hope that this point will be addressed more seriously than it hitherto has been.
The Minister's earlier remarks about the safety clause are at odds with the evidence given to the Select Committee by the chief inspecting officer of railways, Major Rose. He said that the safety commission that he represented was concerned only with propositions that were put to it and was not inclined to examine other matters. I hope that that matter will be taken care of.
Apart from the issue of principle, many people believe that only the French will benefit economically from the tunnel. That belief arises from the planning that is going on on the other side of the Channel. I confirm that such planning is going ahead. A couple of weeks ago, I paid a visit to the city of Lille and had discussions with its Socialist mayor, M. Pierre Mauroy, and selected members of the region of Nord Pas du Calais. They are planning ahead. After that visit, I do not draw a wholly negative and defeatist conclusion from their planning. We have the ingenuity and the capacity to match anything that the French can do.
I am not satisfied that the Government are capable of harnessing the resources to meet the challenge, but an incoming Labour Government can provide the enthusiasm to maximise the benefit to the country. We need to do this if for no other reason than that we cannot lightly disregard the job potential in the construction phase. Nor can we disregard our duty to the deprived regions of the nation that deserve our protection and support. Therefore, despite my reservations about the Government's handling of this affair, and despite the doubts that still exist about the possibility that capital will not be raised, I do not recommend voting against the Third Reading. I trust that their Lordships will make further improvements to the Bill, which in my view is still deficient in many respects.

Mr. Aitken: As the proceedings on the Bill draw towards their close, I feel enormously cheerful. It has become more and more obvious during our debates that the chances of this mistaken project ever being built are diminishing almost daily. It is a strange paradox that what began as a great economic project is not proving to be economically viable. That is why the punters will not put their money into it.
This is a political project. The treaty puts transport and communications way down the list. The object of the project is to strengthen and develop political links with Europe. Nevertheless, the politicians, hard though they have tried, have conspicuously failed to achieve that objective. It may be churlish to say that at Third Reading, but during the last few months the project has steadily lost ground. It has no real support in the country, and in Kent hostility to it is growing.
Furthermore, there seems to be little warmth for the project among hon. Members. One only had to listen to the exchanges between my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Dover (Mr. Rees) and my hon. Friend the Member for Ealing, Acton (Sir G. Young) to understand that this project is largely friendless, despite the brave support of my hon. Friend the Member for Canterbury (Mr. Crouch).
The pivotal factor in killing off the project is its lack of financial backing from the city. The Government are the prisoner of their own ideology. My right hon. Friend the Prime Minister had a long and honourable record of hostility towards the tunnel, but she changed her mind after discussions with President Mitterrand just over two years ago. The project might have been viable if it had had real political will behind it and Government funds to accompany it. However, I should still have been against the project. It would have done tremendous damage to our maritime industry, to other Channel ports and to employment.
Looking back, we should ask why Parliament has worked so hard and so long to deliver this project. The politicians have tried but basically have faied, whereas Eurotunnel has completely failed. Although this project is not yet a dead duck, it is a dying duck.

Mr. Stephen Ross: I congratulate the Minister on his diligence and devotion to duty in guiding this legislation through the House and on the trouble he has taken to present the case to the people in Kent. Nobody could have done more than he.
I do not take the gloomy view of the hon. Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken). I want the Bill to succeed. I hope that it will be not long delayed in the other place and that it will be on the statute book before the Prime Minister calls the next general election. I want Britain to succeed and to pay its way in the world, and the tunnel can play a constructive part in that endeavour. Exports to the European Community must travel there as cheaply and as quickly as possible. The tunnel could play a vital role.
Also I want our hard-pressed but nevertheless extremely important railway network to be given a heaven-sent opportunity to expand and extend its services. If common sense is to prevail and if our roads and airports are not to become more jammed than they already are, we must make much more use of our railway system. We should have built the tunnel 20 years ago, but it is not yet too late.
I ask the Minister to consider the introduction of concessions for cyclists, even though no satisfactory answer has been given by him on this point. If I could squeeze a concession out of Sealink to carry bicycles to the Isle of Wight, surely British Rail ought to be able to carry them free from Rugby, Birmingham and elsewhere

through the tunnel. The authority of the EEC will not apply to the tunnel. Perhaps the Minister will look again at that point.
I should like to congratulate the hon. Member for West Bromwich, East (Mr. Snape), who has stood up for his belief in the tunnel. I was quite interested to see the cross-voting that took place in Committee. In 13 years in the House, I had not experienced that before. The hon. Member for West Bromwich, East served for a long time on the Select Committee, as did other hon. Members, and they have lived with this issue for a long time. How on earth can they go through another public inquiry? God help us, is all I can say. I do not want to be around if that is going to happen.
Of course I should like to see those who will be adversely affected, principally in Kent, given proper compensation. On the whole, the evidence to date confirms that that is already happening.
I fully understand the actions of those hon. Members who represent the constituents who will be hurt the most, and incidentally of the prospective candidates for those seats, some of whom have called me many names under the sun. However, I have stuck to my guns. It is a long tradition of this House that in such instances hon. Members should put the fears of their constituents first. I should have done the same for the Isle of Wight.
Nevertheless, my party has long supported the building of the fixed link, although we always saw it as a public sector project. The fact that we saw it as a rail-only tunnel, built by the public sector, does not mean that we should change our attitude now. As I have said before, I should like to see the tunnel built in my lifetime so that I can enjoy travelling to the continent in comfort, from Waterloo to Paris, and I long to do so.

Mr. Rowe: I should like to make just two points. First, despite the malediction from my hon. Friend the Member for Thanet, South (Mr. Aitken), I should like to say that many people in Kent are looking forward to the Channel tunnel as a real opportunity to increase their prosperity and job opportunities. Although some of my constituents are nervous, most will welcome the completion of the Channel tunnel
Secondly, I should like to advise the Minister that nobody in Kent will welcome the Channel tunnel if the various roadworks, junctions and road widenings that have been promised are not completed before the Channel starts to operate. That is a matter of the utmost importance everywhere in Kent, and I feel that it is important that I say so tonight.

Mr. Raynsford: This important project has been handled in a way that, quite honestly, suggests a tragic failure by the promoters and the Government to afford it the procedures and seriousness that such a project should receive. I do not wish to dwell on the failures of Eurotunnel, because we have heard enough about them tonight and on previous occasions. I am afraid that the company's blundering and ineptitude may be its downfall.
However, I wish to say a few words about the Government's failure to ensure that the people affected are properly consulted; a failure which will undoubtedly cost the Government dear in the county of Kent and elsewhere in the general election. Many people feel that they have not


been given a fair opportunity to express their undoubted hostility to the scheme, and their concern about the impact of the scheme on their homes and environment. The Government have also failed to allow a proper public inquiry.
I should also like to comment on the rush that has been characteristic of the Bill's passage through Select Committee, Standing Committee and tonight on Third Reading, without a proper opportunity for hon. Members to debate issues such as safety, which is crucial. Also, misleading statements of Ministers have implied that the safety authority is free to consider alternative options when we heard the evidence, on oath, of Major Rose in the Select Committee:
I do not see at the moment that it is the function of the safety authority, which I represent to do other than examine the proposition that has been put to us.
I should have appreciated it if the Minister had given some clarification as to how that could be reconciled with his assurances that the safety authority can look at other alternatives.
Frankly, many of us are left with the suspicion that the Ministers and the Conservative Members who support them have been more concerned with promoting the financial interests of Eurotunnel that with looking after the national interests, the safety of the people who will travel through the tunnel and the environment of the areas affected by it.
It is a sad and sorry story and I only hope that the other House will give the Bill closer, more detailed and more serious scrutiny than this House has done.

Mr. Gale: The Bill will leave the House with a number of questions from north-east Kent unanswered. These questions include compensation for farmers, the construction camp and the impact study. We await eagerly the report that will follow the study.
I hope and believe that those who represent north-east Kent have represented their constituents' views correctly. I hope and believe also that we have reflected those views in the House. I am sure that my constituents would wish me to express their thanks to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for the manner in which he has addressed their problems and for the action that he has taken on their behalf.
In the expectation that the impact study will deliver the rest of what is needed to meet the needs of north-east Kent, I shall support my hon. Friend the Minister and the Bill's Third Reading.

Mr. Robert C. Brown: I oppose the Third Reading of this pernicious Bill. I believe that it will spell the economic destruction and ruination of the north-east of England. Ministers have told us in Newcastle of the glorious opportunities that the Channel tunnel will provide for the north-east. We have been told about direct access into the heart of Europe for the commodities that we produce, but after seven years of the ravages of the present damned Government there is precious little industry left in the north-east to produce goods to send to the centre of Europe.
The British Railways Board has recently announced that the freightliner depot just outside Newcastle is to be closed, so even if our industry were intact we would not

have much hope of getting products quickly to the centre of Europe by rail. I am told that freightliner depots down the east coast of Scotland and England are to be closed by the board and that the nearest depot to Newcastle will be Leeds. If we are to enjoy the benefits of the great adventure that is described as the Channel tunnel project, we shall have to transport goods 120 miles by road to Leeds to the nearest freighliner depot.
There is no doubt that the soft underbelly of London and the south-east of England will benefit at the expense of the already denuded industrial north. The two-nation society and the north-south divide that we know now will be nothing compared with the conditions that will prevail in the post-Channel tunnel era.
What will happen if the required £750 million is not raised? Let us say that there is a shortfall of £100 million. Everyone knows that the Prime Minister is paranoic about and obsessed with having her name carved in a tablet of stone along with that of Mr. Mitterrand as a founder of the project. Is anyone bold enough to suggest that, if private enterprise should fall £100 million short of raising £750 million, the Prime Minister will not commit the taxpayer to find the money? That would be adding insult to injury in the north of England, because in effect she would be demanding that the taxpayers of that region should contribute to the digging of their own graves.
I hope that those in another place, who have given the Government a bloody nose on many occasions, will continue repeatedly to draw blood from the Government as they consider this pernicious Bill.

Mr. Allen McKay: I wish to express the views of Yorkshire and Humberside while telling the House about my fears for industry in the north if the Channel tunnel project goes ahead. I have read nothing and heard nothing that leads me to believe that the construction of the tunnel will assist the region, part of which I represent. There is 21 per cent. or 22 per cent. unemployment in my constituency and I must consider seriously the well-being of the area. Over the past few years there have been no signs that conditions will improve.
At this late stage, the Minister could give an assurance that the customs sheds will be built in the north of England, in the Sheffield area. That small item in this project could help the rejuvenation of that area. When the Minister replies, he might influence the way in which I will vote tonight.
As an engineering concept and as a vision of the future, I believe that the Channel tunnel project is great. The project will lift the country and it is something for the country to look forward to. However, I must look to my constituents and ask, what is in it for them? Unless the Minister can give some assurances that the customs sheds will be considered for the Sheffield area, I will have to vote against the Third Reading tonight.

Mr. David Mitchell: There is a saying, "Third time lucky." Work on the Channel tunnel has been started twice before—indeed, this year marks the centenary of the introduction of the first Channel Tunnel Bill into this House. Those who have alleged that the project is being rushed might like to reflect on that. After the "longest


pregnancy in the world"—as Lord Palmerston described it—we are about to witness the birth of the greatest civil engineering project ever undertaken in Europe.
The hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Hughes) was somewhat ambivalent in his support for the Bill. However, already the benefits to Britain which will come from the construction of this project are beginning to be felt. Eurotunnel has placed advance orders for £30 million, a third of that in Scotland. In all, it is anticipated that British companies have the prospect of winning £1 billion-worth of orders, bringing wealth and employment to our factories.
As with all great projects, it is not the starting but the completing that will bring the lasting benefits—benefits for British industry no longer disadvantaged by the cost, delay and unreliability of a sea frontier when competing for that lucrative European market, which already takes 60 per cent. of our exports, and still has enormous potential.
It is our good fortune tonight, as Members of this House, to play a significant part in turning a vision into a reality. While little men and little Englanders will stay out of our Lobby, I invite the House to give a Third Reading to this Bill and thus send the Channel tunnel on its way with a fair wind.

Question put, That the Bill be now read the Third time:

The House divided: Ayes 94, Noes 22.

Division No. 79]
[2.17 am


AYES


Amess, David
Clark, Dr Michael (Rochford)


Ancram, Michael
Coombs, Simon


Atkinson, David (B'm'th E)
Cope, John


Baker, Nicholas (Dorset N)
Couchman, James


Bevan, David Gilroy
Crouch, David


Blackburn, John
Currie, Mrs Edwina


Boscawen, Hon Robert
Dover, Den


Bottomley, Peter
Durant, Tony


Brandon-Bravo, Martin
Edwards, Rt Hon N. (P'broke)


Bright, Graham
Fenner, Dame Peggy


Brooke, Hon Peter
Forsyth, Michael (Stirling)


Burt, Alistair
Forth, Eric


Cash, William
Freeman, Roger


Chalker, Mrs Lynda
Gale, Roger





Galley, Roy
Malins, Humfrey


Garel-Jones, Tristan
Malone, Gerald


Griffiths, Peter (Portsm'th N)
Maude, Hon Francis


Ground, Patrick
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Hamilton, Hon A. (Epsom)
Miller, Hal (B'grove)


Hamilton, Neil (Tatton)
Mills, Iain (Meriden)


Hanley, Jeremy
Mitchell, David (Hants NW)


Hargreaves, Kenneth
Moore, Rt Hon John


Harris, David
Neubert, Michael


Hawksley, Warren
Nicholls, Patrick


Heathcoat-Amory, David
Norris, Steven


Hind, Kenneth
Osborn, Sir John


Hirst, Michael
Patten, J. (Oxf W &amp; Abgdn)


Howard, Michael
Pollock, Alexander


Howarth, Alan (Stratf'd-on-A)
Powley, John


Howarth, Gerald (Cannock)
Proctor, K. Harvey


Hunt, David (Wirral W)
Raffan, Keith


Jessel, Toby
Rathbone, Tim


Jones, Gwilym (Cardiff N)
Rhodes James, Robert


Jones, Robert (Herts W)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Key, Robert
Roe, Mrs Marion


King, Roger (B'ham N'field)
Ross, Stephen (Isle of Wight)


Lang, Ian
Rowe, Andrew


Lawler, Geoffrey
Sainsbury, Hon Timothy


Lennox-Boyd, Hon Mark
Shepherd, Colin (Hereford)


Lester, Jim
Wallace, James


Lightbown, David
Wheeler, John


Lilley, Peter
Whitfield, John


Lloyd, Peter (Fareham)
Wolfson, Mark


Lord, Michael
Yeo, Tim


Lyell, Nicholas
Young, Sir George (Acton)


McCurley, Mrs Anna



MacKay, John (Argyll &amp; Bute)
Tellers for the Ayes:


Maclean, David John
Mr. Michael Portillo and


McLoughlin, Patrick
Mr. Richard Ryder.




NOES


Aitken, Jonathan
Millan, Rt Hon Bruce


Clay, Robert
Moate, Roger


Cocks, Rt Hon M. (Bristol S)
Nellist, David


Corbett, Robin
O'Brien, William


Dixon, Donald
Pike, Peter


Fields, T. (L'pool Broad Gn)
Raynsford, Nick


Harrison, Rt Hon Walter
Silkin, Rt Hon J.


Howarth, George (Knowsley, N)
Skinner, Dennis


Lloyd, Tony (Stretford)
Spearing, Nigel


McKay, Allen (Penistone)



McNamara, Kevin
Tellers for the Noes:


McWilliam, John
Mr. Geoffrey Lofthouse and


Marshall, David (Shettleston)
Mr. Robert C. Brown.

Question accordingly agreed to.

Bill accordingly read the Third time, and passed.

Orders of the Day — Basildon

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Boscawen.]

Mr. David Amess: On 1 April 1986 the new town assets of Basildon were transferred from the development corporation to the Commission for the New Towns. This was the thirteenth such transfer of a new town's assets and I believe that it will be lucky for my constituents and for my constituency. The town lies just 30 miles from the heart of London and is probably one of the best located towns in Britain, a feature which helps to explain its success in attracting more than 400 industrial and commercial organisations from Britain, Europe, north America and elsewhere.
By road, rail, air and sea, Basildon's access to its national and international markets shows clearly why it was selected for designation as a new town in the immediate post-war period. Thirty minutes from Fenchurch street station, it is also within a few minutes of London's orbital M25 motorway. This important new high-speed route puts the town within easy reach of the capital's three international airports at Stansted, Gatwick and Heathrow, as well as linking it to the rest of Britain's motorway network and thence to the channel ports. First-class roads connect the town's new industrial areas to one of the world's largest container ports at Tilbury docks and the increasingly important continental ports at Harwich and Felixstowe.
It is hardly surprising, then, that so much has happened at Basildon. As hundreds of companies have already discovered, Basildon offers a major opportunity for growth in one of the most strategic locations in the southeast, as well as all the social and environmental advantages of a well planned and carefully designed community.
The impact of recent developments in the national communications network means that for this town the future is just beginning. I pay tribute to the chairman of the Commission for the New Towns, Sir Neil Shields; his deputy, a former Member of this House, Mr. Arthur Jones; Sir Gordon Roberts; all the board members; the chief executive, Mr. David Woodhall; the executive manager, Mr. Douglas Galloway, and all the local commission staff. All these people have worked and will continue to work, towards firmly establishing Basildon's position as the finest new town in Britain. I and my constituents are extremely grateful for that. We are also grateful for all the help and encouragement given to us by my hon. Friend the Minister and the noble Lord Skelmersdale.
Just before Christmas my hon. Friend opened an extremely successful exhibition in the House. That exhibition was entitled, "Basildon means business—Basildon, a town of opportunity." My hon. Friend was also instrumental in arranging the "purchase back" agreement for defective properties in Vange. Spurred on by this, I shall now ask him for some further help for my constituency. He will be aware of the problems encountered by tenants using the district heating systems in Felmores and Langdon Hills. Indeed, when he visited my constituency he met leaders of the Felmores heating action group. The case for an alternative system of heating

has been made and I hope that individual gas-fired heating systems can be installed in those properties as soon as possible.
A substantial number of building programmes are under way in Basildon and many fine houses are being built and quickly sold. However, as a matter of urgency, I ask the Minister to urge that much of the remaining land be zoned for housing for shared ownership schemes to help young married couples and for schemes for small units for single people. There is a real need for such homes and I ask my hon. Friend to look closely at the options that I have mentioned.
I shall now turn to the main issue that I wish to bring to the Minister's attention—the future of Basildon's shopping centre. There is no doubt that the new Eastgate international shopping and business centre is the jewel in Basildon's crown. Yesterday we had the splendid news that TOPS, the company purchasing the town square, has agreed to put a roof over the adjoining centre, thus ensuring that we will have the largest shopping centre in Europe. The stage is set for a grand opening of the centre and the prospect of increasing prosperity for Basildon.
A shadow has been cast over all this by a proposal to site a regional shopping centre in West Thurrock, a short distance away. The centre would be just 12 miles, or a 20-minute drive away. A vast array of individuals and organisations have expressed objections to this proposal. The only bodies in favour are the company which wants to build the rival centre, Thurrock borough council arid Essex county council. I met and addressed a gathering of local traders and I can tell the Minister that feelings are running extremely high. At the moment a public inquiry is being held so that all views can be heard before the Secretary of State makes his decision.
The Commission for the New Towns supports the recommendation of refusal made by its predecessor, the Development Corporation. The grounds for this objection are that the proposed development is contrary to the provisions of the approved Essex structure plan, notably those policies to concentrate retail development in sub-regional and district centres and, conversely, not to permit such development outside the built-up areas or settlements. This is a classic example of shifting the goalposts. Given that the proposed development is contrary to the approved Essex structure plan the scheme, if allowed, would affect the retail trading structure throughout the region, as no supporting residential development is proposed. In those circumstances the scheme would have a serious adverse effect on the existing sub-regional and district centres in south Essex and north Kent.
The need for further shops can be met adequately and more satisfactorily in existing centres. In that respect, attention is drawn to the Eastgate Mall, which will provide an additional 500,000 sq ft of retail space in Basildon town centre. The proposed development would most certainly undermine the social and economic investment in neighbouring town centres, including Basildon.
Norwich Union has invested £50 million in our town centre, and would have been reluctant to do so had plans for another shopping centre so close by been known. Norwich Union and Allders proceeded on the undertaking that there would not be another major centre similar to Eastgate nearby that would compete in the same population catchment area.
Allders, as the anchor store, is one of the most important traders in the Eastgate shopping centre, and thus is important to the community of Basildon. The original feasibility studies showed that Allders would be successful. However, as a new store it would be five years or so before it began to be successful, as was proven by its store in Chatham. Thus, in 1991—which is when Allders expected to begin to do well—the Lakeside centre would open, diverting, at Thurrock's own estimate, £2,180,000 from Allders or £9·9 million from Basildon as a whole. That would affect shops and jobs at Allders department store and in the retail outlets throughout the town centre.
I must tell the Minister that if Thurrock affects Basildon to the extent projected by both sides—for and against—the investment in Basildon may be so seriously affected that Allders, the anchor tenant, may consider closing its business and disposing of its interest.
The philosophy of Norwich Union is to support the social fabric of the communities from which its policy holders come. It is concerned about out-of-town shopping centres since, although experience of these in the United Kingdom is limited, the American experience has been such that it is strongly convinced of the need to retain the major retailing functions within town centres. The removal of trade from the centre of the community dissipates the well-being of the community by depriving it of its life source. Once shops become run down or boarded up for lack of business, this sets the tone and the neighbourhood can rapidly deteriorate.
It is clear that there would be a knock-on effect from Allders department store suffering a downturn in its trade. Small retail outlets may have to close quickly.
There may be a reluctance from investors to invest in town centre and refurbishment schemes because of the danger of investment being whittled away by out-of-town centres such as Lakeside. That may be a serious consequence if a precedent is set by allowing this development to go ahead.
I am proud to represent Basildon, a town with what should be an extremely bright future. If the Thurrock development is allowed to go ahead, it will strangle at birth Basildon's shopping centre—a monstrous act. The jewel in our crown can be preserved. Basildon's future would be assured by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment throwing out this planning application, and that is what I ask him to do.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. Harold Walker): I gather that the hon. Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) has the consent of the hon. Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) and of the Minister to intervene.

Mr. Ken Hargreaves: It may seem unusual for someone from the north in the so-called north-south divide to take part in a debate on Basildon, but there is a connection because I sponsored the exhibition which the Commission for the New Towns put on in the Upper Waiting Hall in December. I had originally arranged the exhibition for Hyndburn borough council, to demonstrate how it uses the various Government grants and aid that it receives, and to promote the borough generally. I believe that it would have been good for the borough; much work had been done to prepare it, and it may have brought

much needed jobs to our area. Sadly, at the last minute, Hyndburn's Labour-controlled council decided that it no longer wanted to be involved.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: The subject of the debate is Basildon shopping centre. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will confine his remarks to that.

Mr. Hargreaves: I want to congratulate the Commission for the New Towns on picking up the vacancy which then occurred. It seized the opportunity that had been created and, despite the short notice that it had to prepare it, mounted an impressive exhibition that my hon. Friend the Minister opened.
I congratulate the Commission on its achievement that week and on what it has done for Basildon. My hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess) is fortunate to have such a hard-working body of people working with him for the benefit of Basildon and I am envious of him. There is no doubt that if they continue to work as they have and to grasp the opportunities which they did in mounting the exhibition at short notice, they will continue to bring great benefit to Basildon and I wish them every success.
My hon. Friend is right in saying that to allow the planning application to build a regional shopping centre so near to Basildon will not only destroy the new town shopping centre but will seriously jeopardise Basildon's future and undermine the excellent work of the Commission for the New Towns.

The Minister for Housing, Urban Affairs and Construction (Mr. John Patten): This is turning into a lively debate at 2.40 am. I am glad to hear my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn (Mr. Hargreaves) making his own voice heard and the important issues that we are discussing relating to Basildon which have been raised so forcefully by my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon (Mr. Amess).
Hyndburn's loss was Basildon's gain. I can remember being asked, and I did so with great pleasure, to open the Basildon Means Business exhibition in the Upper Waiting Hall. My hon. Friend and his constituents were extremely fortunate to have that exhibition which was due to the deplorable short-sightedness of the Hyndburn council which did it and its constituents some damage.
None the less, the points made by my hon. Friend the Member for Hyndburn is support of our hon. Friend the Member for Basildon in his aim to see a successful shopping centre in Basildon are well taken. I am sure that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon would support a change of heart, albeit a last minute one, on the part of Hyndburn council if it chose to come again to promote Hyndburn in the Palace of Westminster.
My hon. Friend has always represented his constituents in a clear and forceful manner. I spend a certain amount of my time dealing with matters Basildon. A post-mortem examination would probably find the word "Basildon" engraved deep on my heart, if there is such an organ in my or any other Minister's body. I have answered a good many debates and questions, visited Basildon with my hon. Friend and seen delegations, all of which have given me great pleasure because the way in which my hon. Friend has represented his constituents has been a model of the way in which any hon. Member should try to


represent his constituency, particularly booming Basildon. He has demonstrated again tonight his commitment to securing the future of Basildon new town.
Let me start with an aside, although it is an important aside to the people in Felmore, about their district heating system for fear that time in this lively debate will run out before I have a chance to deal with the issue. I can remember on my last visit to Basildon in the company of my hon. Friend meeting some of the leaders of the association which was concerned about the district heating system at Felmore. I was given a warm reception and we had a useful discussion. I was struck with the responsible attitude towards this difficult problem so often associated with district heating systems. "Design and build in haste and repent at leisure" is the motto of so much modern architecture and associated district heating systems.
I understand that the leaders of the association are in the process of laying out the financial implications of carrying out certain improvements to the system against the costs associated with a replacement programme. Of course, my hon. Friend has in the past made representations about the adequacy of the heating system. We have taken those well, including most recently during oral questioning of my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy on 26 January. No Secretary of State is safe, except perhaps the Secretary of State for Defence and possibly the Secretaries of State for Scotland and for Wales, from penetrating questions about Basildon and its problems. When my officials receive the commission's appraisal we shall make a decision as soon as possible. Needless to say, my hon. Friend will be the first to know. With that aside—a very important one to the people who live there and are so ably represented by my hon. Friend—I turn to the major part of my hon. Friend's speech, which was about Basildon and its shopping centre, an importance that was stressed by my hon. Friend from Hyndburn.
I announced last December, just before Christmas, our policy for the rapid wind-up of the remaining new towns. We have three main aims. The first is to realise a substantial amount of public assets. The second is to help the advance of Government housing policy by diversifying the ownership and tenure of homes in these new towns. About 60,000 homes are involved in the wind-up of the new towns, including some 16,000 in Basildon. I take my hon. Friend's point about share ownership very much to heart.
Our third policy aim, as I announced before Christmas, is to allow us to concentrate on the major task for the 1990s of tackling the regeneration of our older towns that are in difficulties. Good heavens above-Hyndburn! If only there were more co-operative local authorities in some of these towns we could do more.
Any assets remaining at wind-up are transferred to the Commission for the New Towns which has the remit of disposing of those assets as soon as it considers it expedient to do so.
In the 24 years to April 1987, the commission is expected to have disposed of some £500 million worth of assets and to have built up considerable experience in the process. Basildon is very lucky because it now has the benefit of the commission's long experience of these issues. The task of attracting investors can be a complex one, especially when trying to secure the best possible return for taxpayers' investment in the new towns programme. However, the recent completion of the M25 orbital route

has significantly enhanced Basildon's road links as my hon. Friend has said. The commission rightly sees this as a major contribution to its task of asset disposal. The commission is also ensuring that sufficient opportunity is being given to international investment in the town through its property centre at Metro house, and exhibitions such as the one last December which we have already discussed. I join my hon. Friend in paying a warm tribute to Sir Neil Shields, the chairman of the commission, his board and his officers, for the style, the zip, the vim and the vigour with which they are carrying out the duties laid upon them.
It is the town centre in Basildon, as I have seen myself in the company of my hon. Friend, which has undergone such considerable change in recent years. The retail and office developments here are imaginative in design and they have provided Basildon with the most advanced regional shopping centre in Essex. The Eastgate centre especially is an outstanding monument to the enterprise and innovation shown by a former development corporation and to its willingnes to work with institutional investors. Oh that there were more councils up and down the land—including Hyndburn under its new regime— ready to show such willingness!
In realising the town centre assets the Commission for the New Towns is fully aware of the important contribution that this complex will make to the region's retail facilities. It also wishes to encourage scope for future development so that Basildon remains the most advanced shopping complex in the region.
My hon. Friend will be pleased to note therefore that the commission's recent sale to TOPS Estates includes assurances that the town square will be roofed over, as he said. That is splendid news. As my hon. Friend the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State, the hon. Member for Surbiton (M r. Tracey), then responsible for new towns, said in an Adjournment debate on 9 April 1986, we are and have been anxious that the roofing scheme should go ahead. Given the commissioner's track record on disposals I have no doubts that its marketing strategy would in any way threaten the implementation of this scheme.
I understand that my hon. Friend the Member for Basildon is to meet my noble Friend the Under-Secretary of State tomorrow to discuss the disposal of Basildon town centre in some detail. He will have a few hours sleep between this Adjournment debate and his first meeting on Basildon's future in the Department of the Environment tomorrow morning.
I am sure that any concerns that my hon. Friend may still have after this debate will be allayed at that meeting. I know that my noble Friend Lord Skelmersdale is greatly looking forward to the meeting. His only regret is that, because he is in another place, he cannot be here tonight to reply to the debate. There is nothing that he would have liked more than to have been here at this time tonight, and there is nothing that I would have liked more than for him to have been here doing just that.
The Commission for the New Towns will continue to pursue its agreed strategy for the remainder of the town centre. It has agreed a marketing plan that should mean that disposal can be achieved by 1988. By then, the commission's only remaining interest in the town centre may well be in relation to those sites at the western end which involve the district council's interest. Those sites have been excluded from a disposal plan so that the commission can discuss a brief with the council.
I am aware of a number of proposals for development close to Basildon, at Thurrock. It is understandable that one of those proposals, for a shopping centre development, should concern my hon. Friend with regard to Basildon's continued role as a leading retail outlet. My hon. Friend will appreciate, of course, that I cannot comment in this place on the Thurrock proposal at this time as it is currently the subject of a public inquiry. However, regardless of the outcome, one of Basildon's strengths has always been to make itself heard, and to forge ahead in the face of adversity.
I should not like my hon. Friend to think that my right hon. Friend and his ministerial colleagues are not interested in retail developments. Government policy on major retail developments was set out by the then Secretary of State for the Environment, my right hon. Friend the Member for Wanstead and Woodford (Mr.

Jenkin), in reply to a parliamentary question in July 1985. Local planning authorities have recently been reminded of that policy through the issue on 18 December 1986 of departmental circular 21/86. That circular also covered a direction that requires local planning authorities to consult my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State before granting planning permission for developments with gross retail floor space exceeding 250,000 sq ft—something of which I am sure my hon. Friend and his constituents are aware.
Basildon is reaching the time for it to grow and develop on its own. It has enormous potential, and that is a major factor in attracting investment to the town. It should not be for Basildon to worry too much about competition; rather, it should continue to let competitors worry about Basildon.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at eight minutes to Three o'clock am.